Oral
Answers to
Questions

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The Deputy Foreign Secretary was asked—

Blue Belt Programme

Luke Evans: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the blue belt programme on ocean health.

Andrew Mitchell: The blue belt programme supports the protection and sustainable management of 4.3 million sq km of ocean around Britain’s overseas territories.

Luke Evans: The blue belt programme, directly funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, is a fantastic way not only to help with climate change but to improve our environment. One of the biggest threats to oceans is plastics, so will the Government consider strengthening the UN global plastics treaty in the upcoming negotiations?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is interesting to note that 85% of plastic pollution in the Pacific and Indian oceans comes from just six rivers, and therefore an international treaty really matters. The point he makes is a good one, and it is at the centre of negotiations, which the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), was talking about last week in Ottawa.

Andrew Gwynne: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Deputy Foreign Secretary will be aware that over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is within the overseas territories. I was privileged last summer to visit St Helena in the Atlantic ocean, where I was amazed by the natural biodiversity both on the island and in the seas around it. What more help are the British Government giving to the overseas territories Governments to ensure that their biodiversity can be enhanced and maintained?

Andrew Mitchell: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to visit St Helena—as have I in the past. It is one of the most remarkable places on Earth. On the issue of cleaning up the ocean and plastics, I can tell him that the UK is a founding member of the high ambition coalition to end plastic pollution, which is a group of 60 countries whose central aim is to stop  plastic flowing into the environment by 2040. The overseas territories are not suppliers of plastic but they are receivers of a lot of it, and that is why this is so important.

James Gray: The recent Environmental Audit Committee reports—on the Arctic and the current one on the Antarctic, both of which I chair—have called attention to the excellent blue belt programme and how very important it is in the Arctic and the Southern ocean. One of our recommendations was that the programme would work properly only if all the Ministers responsible for the Arctic in different Departments got together on a reasonably regular basis to discuss it. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary please advise on whether that committee has met or what plans he has to call the meeting?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am advised that the meeting is, I think, today.

Christine Jardine: Many of my constituents have written to me concerned that the UK is delaying its ratification of the global ocean treaty, which could limit human activity in what would be known as sanctuary areas in order to protect valuable marine life. Has a Minister made an assessment of how that could work with the blue belt programme to ensure that our overseas territories have the highest possible protection for their water and their biodiversity?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady makes a good point. The Government are extremely well joined up on that—I made the point earlier about the DEFRA Minister working closely with the Foreign Office on these matters—so I think she can reassure her constituents that that matter is very much in hand.

Middle East: UN Security Council

Stephen Hammond: What recent steps he has taken through the UN Security Council to support progress towards a sustainable peace in the middle east.

Andrew Mitchell: The UK played a leading role in securing the passage of Security Council resolutions 2728 and 2720, which set out the urgent demand for expanded humanitarian access.

Stephen Hammond: The way to a sustainable peace, as my right hon. Friend says, is through humanitarian access. Could he please confirm what the UK Government are doing to ensure the full funding of UNRWA again, and what they will do to stop the Hamas terrorist group affecting the supply of aid to Palestinian citizens?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of aid getting in, and UNRWA is a critical organisation in achieving that. He will know that we have had a chance to look at the Colonna report, and I spoke about this matter with the UN Secretary-General yesterday when I was in New York. We are waiting for the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, which we expect to hear about soon, and we will then  reach our conclusions on the best way of getting aid into Gaza. My hon. Friend may rest assured that we are doing everything we can to ensure that aid gets in.

Imran Hussain: Next Sunday will mark 100 days since the International Court of Justice warned of a genocide in Gaza, yet the Israeli military continues to ignore the legally binding orders of the world’s highest court, continues to bomb Gaza indiscriminately and continues to block vital humanitarian aid, all while the UK stands by and lets the right-wing Netanyahu Cabinet blatantly undermine the court’s legitimacy.
Can the Minister explain to me just what blatantly disregarding international courts and openly violating UN ceasefire resolutions means for the rules-based order he claims to uphold, because to me, my constituents, the Palestinians and countless persecuted groups across the world, frankly these rules are now not worth the paper they are written on?

Andrew Mitchell: What the hon. Gentleman says—the way he reflects on what the ICJ said—is not accurate. The ICJ called for hostage release, for more aid into Gaza and for Israel not to commit acts that violate the rights of Palestinians. The Government agree with those three points.

Julian Lewis: Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary take the message back to his boss that the insertion of British troops on the ground in Gaza will simply play into the hands of those who wish to divert attention further away from the existential conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Does he share my sadness that there is not a single mention of Ukraine in any of the questions on today’s Order Paper?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will know that the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to help Ukraine. He will have seen the Prime Minister’s announcement last week on the increase in defence spending, and where that announcement was made.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will not draw any conclusions from today’s Order Paper, but note specifically this Government’s driving ambition to ensure that Ukraine is successful in beating back the Russians.

Tommy Sheppard: The creation of a sustainable peace in the middle east will require the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. The Deputy Foreign Secretary will know that Prime Minister Netanyahu is now implacably opposed to the creation of such a state, so what will the UK do to oblige Israel to comply with the international peace process? Does he think a sustainable peace is possible so long as Mr Netanyahu remains in power?

Andrew Mitchell: Many voices are heard within Israel, but the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the predominant view of the region, of the United Nations and of the regional powers, the great powers and the British Government is that a two-state solution is required, with both Palestine and Israel living behind secure borders in peace and safety.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

David Lammy: More than 30,000 Palestinians are dead, more than 100 Israeli hostages are still unaccounted for and Gaza is facing famine. The war must end now with an immediate ceasefire. That needs both sides to agree. It was Hamas, not Israel, who rejected the last internationally brokered ceasefire deal. Now a new offer is on the table, and Hamas now have the power to stop the fighting. Does the Minister agree that Hamas should accept this deal and avert a catastrophic continuation of this war?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, although these negotiations are fluid at the moment, he is right to say that Hamas should accept the deal that has been put on the table.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: The Minister knows that securing a sustainable peace will require a massive aid and rebuilding programme, in which UNRWA will have, and must have, a crucial part to play. Indeed, he has previously acknowledged that UNRWA has a vital role to play in providing aid and services in Gaza. Why, then, having assured this House that he will come to a decision on the future of UNRWA’s funding when he received Catherine Colonna’s interim report, has he sat on that report for 10 days and said absolutely nothing about restoring funding? He now seems to be setting us up for even further delay. It is simply not good enough. Will he now tell us when this Government will make a decision on UNRWA’s funding?

Andrew Mitchell: We have been very clear that we are waiting for not one but two reports. As I say, I discussed this matter yesterday with the UN Secretary-General. We know very well, as the hon. Gentleman does, that the assets UNRWA has in terms of logistics, vehicles, warehouses and so forth, are essential for the supply of humanitarian relief within Gaza. We are considering the matter carefully. He will also know that Britain is not currently in deficit in its funding; we are fully funded at this point for UNRWA. It has also received additional resources, including private resources as well as new Governments coming in to support it. We will consider carefully both those two reports in full and then make a decision, and I will come back to the House to inform it when that decision is reached.

Persecution of Christians

Kevin Foster: If he will make an assessment of the implications for his policies of the Open Doors report entitled “World Watch List 2024”.

Nusrat Ghani: The report provides a sobering account of the extreme difficulties faced by many Christians around the world, noting that more than 365 million Christians face persecution each year. As my hon. Friend knows, freedom of religion or belief is a priority for the UK, and we will continue to recognise and seek to address issues of persecution of Christians globally.

Kevin Foster: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is great to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on the Front Bench.
The “World Watch List 2024” laid bare the significant persecution that Christians face across the world and the increasing pressure on churches in China. During recent ministerial visits, what representations were made on this issue to the Chinese Government, alongside highlighting other aspects of their dreadful human rights record?

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate not only for the churches but for all faith groups in his constituency. It is unacceptable that Christians are persecuted simply for practising their religion. He highlights China in particular, and we remain deeply concerned about the persecution there of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Falun Gong practitioners. He knows that I was sanctioned by China for raising the issue of the persecution of the Uyghur Muslims. The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), who is the Asia Minister, visited China last week, where she made clear our concerns about its human rights violations.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for that answer. Open Doors produces the World Watch List reports and we are deeply indebted to it for what it does. Pakistan continues to cause concern for me and many others; there are Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Christians who cannot have the freedom of human rights and are persecuted across all of Pakistan. How can we exert greater influence to effect change in Pakistan and make it better for people when it comes to worshipping their God as they so wish to do?

Nusrat Ghani: The hon. Gentleman is already applying a lot of pressure through his chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which took forward a Bill just last week. My co-Minister Lord Ahmad met Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, in March to discuss the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and the former Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of the persecution of religious communities, including recent attacks against the Christian community in the Punjab. Those conversations will continue, and the fact that we have committed to continuing the role of the freedom of religion or belief envoy will provide us with the authority to do that.

Illegal Migration: International Co-operation

Nicholas Fletcher: What diplomatic steps he is taking to strengthen international co-operation on tackling illegal migration.

Chris Clarkson: What diplomatic steps he is taking to strengthen international co-operation on tackling illegal migration.

Giles Watling: What diplomatic steps he is taking to strengthen international co-operation on tackling illegal migration.

Andrew Mitchell: Tackling irregular migration is a priority for Foreign Office engagement across our overseas networks, through international forums, including at the G7 and European Political Community, and bilaterally.

Nicholas Fletcher: Given the success of the agreement with Albania, which has considerably reduced the number of illegal immigrants crossing by small boats, does the Minister believe that more of these agreements are necessary, alongside our Rwanda policy?

Andrew Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend makes a good point. He will have seen that on 17 April we signed an agreement with Vietnam to tackle irregular migration and reduce channel crossing casualties. The numbers of Vietnamese people coming across the channel has been one of the fastest rising groups in recent months.

Chris Clarkson: Recently, the Irish Tánaiste stated that he believed the increase in irregular migration to the Republic of Ireland was a direct result of the deterrent effect of our Rwanda policy. The Irish Government have since made moves to try to remove those illegal migrants back to the UK. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with EU counterparts and Home Office colleagues about ensuring there is no returns policy with the EU unless a reciprocal agreement is made?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point: what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. The movement of asylum seekers from the UK to the southern Irish Republic would suggest that the Rwanda agreement is already having the deterrent effect we are seeking.

Giles Watling: I have been saying for some time in this place, and many other places, that a combined effort between French and English forces would be very useful on the ground in France to stop the boats from even getting to the beaches in the first place. We have the technology and we can destroy the boats; I do not see why we do not do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I wish to visit Calais to meet the mayor to discuss that idea. Will my right hon. Friend join us?

Andrew Mitchell: That is an unbelievably tempting invitation from my hon. Friend. Recently, we have seen a 120% increase in French troops on the ground and a 36% reduction in the number of migrants coming across compared with last year, so French troops on the ground are delivering what is required, at least in part.

Gregory Campbell: The Irish Republic’s Government and their Justice Minister indicated that they believe that up to 80% or more of those who are illegally in the Republic of Ireland are coming across the land border, but that appears to have been a purely subjective figure. Has the Minister been able to establish the veracity, or otherwise, of such an exceptionally high figure, which the Justice Minister has claimed to be the case?

Andrew Mitchell: We have not because, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, that is a southern Irish Government responsibility. No doubt the southern Irish Government will be pressed on this matter and will deliver an answer in due course.

Patrick Grady: On one hand, the Minister says he wants to improve international co-operation on tackling illegal migration, but on the other hand he says the Government are not willing to come to an agreement with the Government of Ireland or any other European countries on returns of asylum seekers.

Andrew Mitchell: I did not say anything of the sort, Mr Speaker. We are working together in numerous international fora, including the Global Refugee Forum, the G7, the UN General Assembly and the European Political Community summit, to tackle this matter upstream. Working upstream and working with others is critical to resolving this deeply disturbing problem.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.

Alyn Smith: The only way to stop boats at sea and illegal migration is through structured co-operation with our neighbours and internationally. I welcome the signing on 23 February of the agreement between the UK and EU’s Frontex border protection service, but is it properly funded and what mechanisms are in place to review that funding as it evolves? Surely the Minister must agree with me that the best way to tackle illegal migration is to fund safe and legal routes properly. What progress is he making on a comprehensive deal to that end with our EU friends, including Ireland?

Andrew Mitchell: We need to tackle this issue, as I think the hon. Gentleman is implying, on a series of different fronts. We are working upstream, as the deal with Vietnam demonstrates. Our Prime Minister has substantially repaired the relationship with France. The Calais Group has met the UK-France customs partnership. We work closely with Frontex. There are far more officials now in Britain dealing with these cases. As the Prime Minister has made clear, once this matter has been resolved, he is going to look at bringing in safe and legal routes from elsewhere.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Mohammad Yasin: What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Ian Levy: What steps he is taking to help get more aid into Gaza.

Yasmin Qureshi: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Naseem Shah: What steps he is taking to help improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Andrew Mitchell: We have trebled our aid commitment in the past year and we are doing all we can to get more aid to Gaza by land, air and sea.

Mohammad Yasin: The Colonna review was given no evidence to back up claims by the Israeli Government that UNRWA staff were involved in the 7 October attacks. Other countries have already restored funding to the aid agency, so it can continue its work feeding  tens of thousands of people who are starving in Gaza, including innocent babies who are dying without milk. Will the Minister commit to refunding today? Or will he continue to risk UK complicity in using famine as a weapon of war?

Andrew Mitchell: I have set out the process by which we will judge how and when to restore funding to UNRWA, but the situation has improved in recent weeks. The hon. Member will have seen that fuel for bakeries has been restored. We are pressing for the activation of the water pipeline and, over the past week, we have been averaging more than 200 trucks each day. Progress has been made, but there needs to be a lot more progress, and Britain will continue to press for it.

Ian Levy: When Putin invaded Ukraine, the people of Blyth, Cramlington and Seaton Valley came together and generously gave what they could spare. With help from local companies, such as Moody Logistics and Storage in Cramlington, we were able to ensure that aid reached those who had lost their homes and their belongings. What plans does my right hon. Friend’s Department have in place to get aid from the UK to Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I pay tribute to the good people of Blyth, Cramlington and Seaton Valley for their generosity, and to my hon. Friend for helping to channel that goodwill so constructively. His constituents will want to support reputable non-governmental organisations and charities working to support humanitarian relief in Gaza.

Yasmin Qureshi: Israel has forced more than 1 million Palestinians to flee to Rafah, claiming it to be a safe zone, yet for months the Israeli military have been bombing Palestinians there relentlessly and, according to the UN, killing mostly women and children. Now it is planning a ground invasion that will lead to carnage. Does the Minister agree that President Biden could stop this with one phone call, and will he press him to do so?

Andrew Mitchell: President Biden has been very heavily engaged in this matter. As the hon. Member knows, both the American and British Governments have pressed Israel not to launch an all-out assault on Rafah for the reasons that she set out. The shadow Foreign Secretary rightly said that he hopes that Hamas will accept the current deal on the table, and I agree with him.

Naseem Shah: An Israel ground invasion in Rafah is probable within days, leading to 1.5 million displaced Palestinians with no safe place to shelter. Children in Gaza have been starved at the fastest rate that the world has ever seen, and Members across the House, including myself, have come here time and again asking for something to be done in terms of delivering aid and pushing for a ceasefire. Time and again, the Minister says that we are trying, trying, trying, but clearly trying is not working. What will the Government do to move the dial and stop children dying?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member will have seen the 6 April maritime announcement and she will know that Britain is ramping up the delivery of aid by land, sea and air. She will, I hope, be aware that we have a naval ship standing by with £9.7 million of aid and logistics equipment. There have also been 10 air drops already   from the Royal Air Force; an 11th one is expected today. Therefore, the British Government are doing everything they possibly can to move the dial, as she requests.

Kit Malthouse: As the Minister will know, it is not only Governments and NGOs supporting Palestinians across Israel, the west bank and Gaza, but a lot of charities. I have been contacted by one such charity, ABCD, which operates a centre for disabled Palestinian children in the Nur Shams refugee camp. It tells me that its centre has been raided and destroyed not once, but several times, by the Israeli army—not by settlers. What more can the Government do to protect the facilities and personnel of British charities operating in the Palestinian territories?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend will know that we do everything that we can in that respect, but if he is able to give me some specific details about that particular charity and what has befallen it, I will look into it.

Theresa Villiers: The Prime Minister has identified getting aid in and getting hostages out as two key priorities for the UK Government. Israel is facilitating aid getting into Gaza by air, land and sea, with 468 trucks entering the area in a single day. We are seeing real progress on aid; when will we see progress on hostages, too?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to see breathing space so that we can get the hostages out and more aid in; in spite of what she says, the aid that is getting in at the moment is not sufficient. That is precisely the policy of the British Government, and we will continue to pursue it with all vigour.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Wayne David: Given that the Colonna report makes clear that donors should have confidence in UNRWA and that Australia, France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Japan and Denmark have all restored funding, and with Gaza facing famine, I ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary again: when will the Government do what Labour has called for and restore full funding to UNRWA?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have set out, we are looking at all those reports and we will make a decision in our own time. Britain is not falling short in that respect, because we are currently fully funded on all the earlier commitments we made. We will look at the Office of Internal Oversight Services report and the UNRWA reaction to it. We are aware of non-traditional donors and private donations coming in, and UNRWA is fully funded until the end of May. When we reach our conclusion, I will be sure to inform the House of it.

Strategic Export Licences: Israel

Owen Thompson: If the Government will revoke strategic export licences to Israel.

Andrew Mitchell: As required by the UK’s robust arms export control regime, the Foreign Secretary has reviewed the most recent advice about the situation in Gaza and Israel’s  conduct of its military campaign. The British position on export licences is unchanged, but we will keep that position under review.

Owen Thompson: Given that the very purpose of the UK’s arms export licence criteria is to apply a precautionary principle to arms sales to prevent them from fuelling future atrocities, and given the extensive evidence of potential war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza, surely it is clear that the UK export licensing system is not working. Does the Minister agree with me and the countless Midlothian constituents who have been in touch with me that the Government should now suspend the transfer of arms to Israel in order to prevent future atrocities, and does he agree that UK Government policy allows for that decision to be made at the discretion of Ministers, outside the failed export licensing system?

Andrew Mitchell: Our position on the arms embargo is consistent with most of our like-minded partners, who have not taken any decision to suspend existing arms export licences to Israel. It would be an odd decision for us to take when we have used our own military weaponry to defend Israel from the attacks by Iran.

Michael Ellis: Exports are linked to law, of course, and the White House said yesterday that the International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over Israel because, rather like the USA, it is not a signatory to the statute of Rome, which set up the Court. More than three years ago the then British Prime Minister wrote an open letter saying that the UK does not accept that the ICC has jurisdiction, again because of the statute of Rome and the absence of sovereignty over the situation in the region. Can the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm that that is still the position of His Majesty’s Government?

Andrew Mitchell: I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that we do not think that the ICC has that jurisdiction, as was set out in the letter to which he referred, but it is a matter for the ICC ultimately to reach a determination on that.

British Embassy: Port-au-Prince

Fabian Hamilton: What steps his Department is taking to support the welfare of staff in the British embassy in Port-au-Prince.

David Rutley: The safety of our staff is paramount, and a decision was taken in November 2019 to move the last UK base staff member in Haiti to the neighbouring Dominican Republic. The security situation since has not allowed us to consider returning permanently. We have two country-based staff members in Haiti’s capital, who we are in constant contact with. They are working from home and there are no specific threats to them based on them working for the UK.

Fabian Hamilton: When Haiti’s transitional council was sworn in last week, the location of the ceremony had to be changed owing to gunfire erupting from nearby criminal gang outposts—a stark reminder that  Haiti is a country far from political legitimacy. What steps are the Government taking to assist the transitional council in order to ensure that a new President is democratically elected in 2026 and that we do not see them targeted with violence in the meantime?

David Rutley: We are working closely with international partners, including the United States, Canada and, very importantly, CARICOM—the Caribbean
Community—and of course we are also working incredibly hard to ensure that we provide every support we can for the multinational security support mission. The Foreign Secretary has already pledged funds for our support for that important mission.

Stephen Metcalfe: I welcome the UK’s £5 million commitment towards the deployment of the multinational security support mission in Haiti. Will my hon. Friend tell the House a little more about how that mission is being deployed, and can he expand on the discussions that he has had with our friends in the Dominican Republic about their security on the border with Haiti?

David Rutley: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question about the Dominican Republic. I was there at the end of March and met President Abinader. We talked about the situation and the importance of the MSS. Clearly, the Kenyans will need to decide how they move forward, but as has been said, the putting in place of the transitional presidential council was an important moment.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Anna McMorrin: Half of Haiti’s population is starving, violence is rife, dead bodies lie forgotten on the street. For too long this crisis has been ignored. As the Minister knows, that grave situation risks also destabilising the wider Caribbean region, including our overseas territories, with the Turks and Caicos islands less than 200 miles away. Can the Minister confirm the UK’s donation to the UN fund—the Government missed that out of their statement—and lay out what other diplomatic support the Government are offering to address the crisis?

David Rutley: Most importantly, beyond the other things that I have mentioned, we are working closely with the UN Security Council, which is a vital forum here, and we continue to work with like-minded countries to help with the establishment of the MSS. The hon. Lady rightly highlights the importance of humanitarian support. We are one of the major donors to the UN central emergency response fund, and there has been an authorisation of disbursement of $12 million to support those affected.

Conflict in Gaza: Iran

Antony Higginbotham: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of Iran’s role in the conflict in Gaza.

Andrew Mitchell: Iran’s support for proscribed groups operating in Gaza, such as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, compromises our efforts towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza.

Antony Higginbotham: Iran continues to operate in violation of the joint comprehensive plan of action. Its nuclear programme is way beyond anything needed for purely peaceful processes. However, it does not end there: Iran is threatening journalists on UK streets, and its proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis continue to inflict tragedy on the region. What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of whether the JCPOA is still fit for purpose?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Alongside international partners, we are prepared to use all options available to tackle the difficulties that he describes, including triggering the UN snapback and ending the JCPOA if necessary.

Philippa Whitford: As probably the only Member who has actually lived and worked in Gaza, I must say that I have been heartbroken over the past six months by what I am hearing from friends and colleagues there about the almost total destruction of the healthcare system and the impact of widespread starvation on their patients. With the UK having defunded the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, still supplying arms to Israel, and often defending Netanyahu’s policies, is the Minister not anxious that the UK Government are undermining international law itself?

Andrew Mitchell: No. The hon. Lady will have seen how, in respect of UN Security Council resolutions 2720 and 2728, Britain’s diplomacy worked to move people into a common position. We are very clear about the importance of getting aid into Gaza and getting the hostages out, and all British policy is bent, without fear or favour, towards achieving that.

Rafah: Military Offensive

George Galloway: If the Government will make an assessment of the potential impact of a military offensive in Rafah on the humanitarian situation in that area.

Andrew Mitchell: We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah. We need an immediate humanitarian pause to get aid in and hostages out, then progress towards a permanent, sustainable ceasefire.

George Galloway: The Foreign Secretary is fortunate to have such an able deputy, which makes it all the more difficult to understand the inherent complacency in that answer. We are hours away from a bloodbath that will make Falluja pale into insignificance—it will be the worst bloodbath seen in the world since the second world war. Some 1.6 million people, most of them women and children, are 72 hours away from a full-scale invasion. The Minister keeps saying that we are going to press Israel; what are the Government going to do about it if it happens?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman and I first entered this House on the same day, nearly 40 years ago, and it is no surprise to see him back in his place. It has to be said that throughout that time his views have been remarkably consistent. Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it is not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international  humanitarian law in the current circumstances, and on his overall point, I hope he will recognise that the British Government are doing everything we can to prevent the circumstances he has described.

Mark Logan: “Sustainable calm” is the latest buzzword, but the fighting simply has to stop. In the past two days, Palestinian President Abbas has said that in order for there to be sustainable calm or a ceasefire, the United States must give a warning to Israel. What warnings have the UK Government given to Israel when it comes to a possible ground invasion in Rafah?

Andrew Mitchell: I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made earlier. He will know that the British and American Governments have been working in lockstep to prevent the situation he has described.

International Parental Child Abduction

Priti Patel: What recent discussions he has had with his Polish counterpart on international parental child abduction.

Nusrat Ghani: I recognise the distress caused to all those affected by international parental child abduction, particularly the children. The primary global mechanism for dealing with international child abduction cases is the 1980 Hague child abduction convention. Due to the persistent campaigning of my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Office has raised this matter with the Polish Government, including the Foreign Secretary raising it with his counterpart.

Priti Patel: The Minister is fully sighted on what is, frankly, one of the most tragic and appalling cases: that of my constituent, Mr Tom Toolan, whose Polish ex-partner defied a family court order and took their daughter Rhian to Poland. This case has been going on for too long—for many, many years. I thank the Department for the engagement it has been having. The Minister will also know that there are hundreds of other cases of children being abducted that are specific to Poland. With the change in the Polish Government at the end of last year, what further plans do the Minister and the Government have to give real support to my constituent? His life is being destroyed by this, and it cannot go on. It is not sustainable any more, and he has been let down by Polish court orders again and again.

Nusrat Ghani: My right hon. Friend’s persistent campaigning has made sure that the case of Tom Toolan has been raised regularly with our Polish counterparts. The Government have raised it many times, including on 9 April with the Minister of Justice. The Foreign Office remains committed to using every appropriate opportunity to raise issues surrounding the enforcement of court orders under the 1980 Hague convention, as well as individual cases, with the Polish Government. As my right hon. Friend will know, now that I have taken over this brief, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we are returning children to the parents they have been allocated to by courts.

Sudan: Humanitarian Situation

Alison Thewliss: What recent assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the humanitarian situation in Sudan.

Andrew Mitchell: This year, the UK will nearly double its support for people in Sudan, with £89 million in aid. That is nearly double the amount we set out at the beginning of last year, but in the past quarter, we have augmented that figure as well.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Sudanese city of El Fasher is the western region of Darfur’s humanitarian hub, but the US ambassador to the UN has said that El Fasher
“is on the precipice of a large-scale massacre”.
What is the Minister doing to avert this impending crisis?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member raises the position of El Fasher, and I specifically spoke about this with the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, yesterday. She is absolutely right, and we are doing everything we can. As she will know, Darfur is a particular focus of the British Government—and indeed of Parliament, through the all-party group on Sudan and South Sudan—and, through a number of mechanisms, we are doing everything we can to try to ensure that the people in Darfur are protected.

David Mundell: I do not know whether the Deputy Foreign Secretary has had the opportunity to see the evidence that frontline aid workers gave to the International Development Committee last week. It was very traumatic evidence, but the one chink of light was their positivity towards the work that the FCDO has been doing to try to continue education for children displaced during this crisis. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that that support will continue and, indeed, be enhanced?

Andrew Mitchell: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. We are seeking to assist 500,000 children under five in Sudan. He will know that 8.6 million people have been displaced, 2 million have fled across borders and 17.7 million are suffering acute food insecurity. More widely, 730,000 Sudanese children are suffering from the deadliest form of malnutrition.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Lyn Brown: As we know, and as has been said, right now an offensive is under way to capture El Fasher, the last remaining city in Darfur outside Rapid Support Forces control. The risk of massacres and rapes targeted at non-Arab communities is imminent, and I fear that it will be simply appalling in scale. All arms supplies to the warring sides must stop, and we thank our tireless diplomats, alongside African Security Council colleagues, for Friday’s statement at the UN, but what mechanisms are the Government using, with our partners, every single day to build pressure for an immediate ceasefire and a sustainable peace?

Andrew Mitchell: We very much hope that Jeddah 3 will be the next significant opportunity to negotiate. What we require is a ceasefire, with the troops returning to barracks, and a political track. When I was in Adré on the Chad-Sudan border a few weeks ago, I saw for myself the difficulties of supporting Darfur, including with food. The hon. Lady, and indeed the House, may rest assured that Sudan is not forgotten and that Britain, as the pen holder at the United Nations, is doing everything it can to help.

Nicaragua: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Fiona Bruce: What steps he is taking to support freedom of religion or belief in Nicaragua.

David Rutley: The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. We share widespread international concern about the suppression of human rights in Nicaragua, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. We continue to call, in bilateral and multilateral settings, for the Nicaraguan Government to respect democracy and all human rights.

Fiona Bruce: Three all-party parliamentary groups, including that on international freedom of religion or belief, recently produced an inquiry report, “The Silencing of Democracy in Nicaragua”, outlining widespread, grave and brutal human rights violations by the regime against journalists, academics, political opponents, religious leaders and wider civil society. Our report makes recommendations for the UK Government and other states. What public steps will Ministers take, both unilaterally and jointly with other countries, to challenge those violations, to support the victims and survivors,  such as Bishop Álvarez, and to call to account the Nicaraguan regime for such violations, in line with our recommendations?

David Rutley: I very much welcome the report. It was good to meet my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the respected special envoy on FORB, to review the report—I read it with interest and will respond to the inquiry members shortly. She can be assured that we continue to call out this behaviour—this unacceptable behaviour—by the regime, which does not respect human rights and certainly does not respect freedom of religion or belief.

Jimmy Lai

Bob Seely: What steps his Department is taking to support Jimmy Lai during his trial in Hong Kong.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: We have called for an end to British citizen Jimmy Lai’s prosecution in Hong Kong and for his release. The Foreign Secretary raised his case with the Chinese Foreign Minister in February, and I raised it during my visits to Beijing and Hong Kong last week.

Bob Seely: Would Ministers agree that this dreadful case shows the true nature of the Chinese communist regime? Could we be doing more to really get a stout   defence of British citizens throughout the world, including Vladimir Kara-Murza in Russia and Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, who are part of political show trials in authoritarian or fascist states?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: Mr Lai has faced multiple charges to silence and discredit him, and he has been targeted in a clear attempt to stop the peaceful exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and association. My hon. Friend raises an important question about dual nationals and the challenges that our consular teams face in countries that do not recognise that British nationality. We will continue to champion them, and we have consular teams at Jimmy Lai’s trial almost every day and will continue to provide what support we can, including to his family.

Chris Bryant: I know that the Minister takes a close interest in this issue. Has she or any other Foreign Office Minister had an opportunity to raise this directly with the Chinese ambassador?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I have raised this issue with the ambassador, and was able to raise it last week when I was in Beijing with my Foreign Minister counterpart.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Catherine West: The trial and detention of British citizen Jimmy Lai shows the symbolism and importance of getting a grip on the question of Hong Kongers and their rights. Can the Minister confirm that when she was in Beijing she was able to get the balance right between the legitimate trade interests and the importance of human rights, freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and all those other moral and political duties that we have in foreign policy?

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I was able to meet many different groups, from businesses to civil society and religious voices, and indeed political interlocutors, last week in Beijing and also in Hong Kong. I raised very firmly all those issues, such as freedom of expression, without fear or favour. They were robust discussions. It is so important that we are able to engage so that we can have those conversations. Our complex relationship with China and Hong Kong continues but we will continue to stand firm to make sure we champion and stand up for all those who defend those freedoms.

Topical Questions

Tonia Antoniazzi: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Mitchell: The Government continue to stand up for our values, our allies and those most in need. The Foreign Secretary attended the NATO and G7 Foreign Ministers meetings and reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to Ukraine. He urged partners to increase their support in line with the Prime Minister’s pledge of 2.5% of GDP for defence. I returned overnight from the United Nations in New York as part of Britain’s contribution to the international conference on population and development 30 and our work on Sudan and securing funding to stave off a famine in Ethiopia.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Conditions in Gaza are desperate and civilians are suffering. It is now an immense issue. Water has still not been fully switched back on and famine is taking hold. The World Food Programme reports that 90% of people in northern Gaza are living on less than a meal a day. Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly outline what his Government are doing to alleviate the threat of famine and prevent its further spread?

Andrew Mitchell: We are trying to make sure that the water is restored, as I set out earlier, and we are championing the provision of aid by land, sea and air, and I set out the help we have received from the Royal Air Force in that respect. But at the end of the day, the right way to get aid into Gaza is by road and we are pressing in every way we can to ensure that that access is restored.

Luke Evans: Following on from that discussion about getting aid into Gaza, sometimes we need novel ways of thinking about doing that, so what conversations is my right hon. Friend having with other countries and counterparts about opening a new maritime corridor if the road routes are failing?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are working closely with a number of partner Governments, including the United States of America, Cyprus and the United Nations. Maritime discussions include corridor planning for the delivery of UK aid and our package of support including equipment and the use of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

David Lammy: Last week the US Congress agreed a new $61 billion aid package for Ukraine. The bipartisan co-operation led by Mike Johnson is essential if Ukraine is to continue to defend against Putin’s illegal invasion. I am proud that this House will stand united on Ukraine for as long as it takes to win. Will the Minister update the House on progress with our G7 allies to seize and repurpose frozen Russian state assets in the UK, to support the reconstruction of Ukraine?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government are seeking agreement on a way of advancing this matter with the G7. The right hon. Gentleman is right about the mechanism, and we are doing everything we can with our allies to achieve precisely what he describes.

Anna Firth: Hamas are rightly an internationally proscribed organisation, yet the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which funds and supports Hamas, is not. Should it not be?

David Rutley: The list of proscribed organisations is kept under review, but we do not comment on whether any particular organisation is being considered for proscription. However, the Government have taken measures to counter the threat from Iran, including sanctioning the IRGC in its entirety.

Wera Hobhouse: Tibet is currently ranked as the least free place for civil and political rights by Freedom House, alongside Syria. There are credible reports of torture, extrajudicial killings and serious restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Last year, three independent  UN experts warned that almost a million Tibetan children are coerced into a residential schools system designed to systematically assimilate them into Han culture.  What diplomatic steps have the Government taken to hold the Chinese Government to account for these grievous violations?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is topical questions.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Government consistently raise human rights issues with the Chinese authorities, as I did during my visit last week, as I have mentioned. We also regularly raise Tibet in multilateral fora, such as in January at China’s universal periodic review and in March as part of our item 4 statement at the UN Human Rights Council.

Rob Butler: Many people in the Aylesbury constituency are understandably concerned about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. They condemn the appalling actions of Hamas, but at the same time want the UK to do everything possible to get more aid in. Can my right hon. Friend let them know what further plans he has to provide more aid directly, especially with our friends in the region, including Egypt, Qatar and Jordan?

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his thoughts and ideas, which he came and spoke to me about last week. He was conveying the views of the mosques in Aylesbury. We are pursuing many of the ideas that he set out, as he knows, especially on meeting the evident humanitarian needs that have rightly preoccupied the House today.

Rupa Huq: One month since UN Security Council resolution 2728 passed with UK support, what are our Government doing to bring about the immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the compliance with international law, the release of hostages and the passage of aid that it calls for? What are the consequences for non-compliance, apart from more death and destruction?

Andrew Mitchell: As the hon. Lady knows, UN resolution 2728, which was passed on 25 March, reflected the international consensus behind the UK’s position about the importance of getting aid in and the hostages out. That is what we are bending every sinew to achieve.

Daniel Kawczynski: Bearing in mind Lord Cameron’s unique responsibility for Libya, following our intervention in that country during the Arab spring, what are the Government doing to help the Libyan Government to tackle the enormous fraud that is taking place from the sale of oil from the Libyan state oil company?

David Rutley: We continue to work closely with the Government in Libya. Lord Ahmad and I keep in touch on these matters, and I will update my hon. Friend further.

George Galloway: When the International Court of Justice, almost 100 days ago, sent Israel for trial, plausibly on charges of genocide, the British Government called it a foreign court. What attitude will the Government take if, as is widely reported, the British King’s Counsel chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issues an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu?

Andrew Mitchell: I think the hon. Gentleman is speculating in an extraordinary manner. What the Court said at the time was that the hostages should be released, that there should be more aid into Gaza and that Israel should not commit acts that violate the rights of Palestinians. That is where the Court rests at this point, and we must wait for further events.

Julian Sturdy: Ahead of the UN General Assembly high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to build the political will of developed and developing countries to prioritise tackling AMR? What discussions has he had with his counterparts coming up to this high-level meeting?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. An enormous amount of work is going on in respect of AMR, which is being discussed extensively this year at the United Nations. Dame Sally Davies, who leads for Britain on this vital issue, is doing a fabulous job, and Britain is committed to doing everything it can to make real progress.

Chris Stephens: As of 9 April, eight field hospitals are reportedly active inside the Gaza strip, with some operating at 265% of their capacity and with a shortage of medication and supplies. What are the UK Government doing to help facilitate medical evacuations, particularly of children?

Andrew Mitchell: We have worked extensively with our partners in the Gulf on evacuations, and Britain is doing a great deal through our medical support for the field hospital we have in Gaza as well as to support other humanitarian and medical activities, which are so vital there.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: British citizen Ryan Cornelius has now been imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates for 16 years. In 2022, the UN determined that he was “arbitrarily detained”, and before the Deputy Foreign Secretary came to his current position, he signed a letter calling for his immediate release. On Saturday, Ryan turned 70, and his children have grown up without him. Will the Government please update us on what they are doing to get him home and whether they will lodge a plea for clemency, given his age and  ill health?

David Rutley: I assure my hon. Friend that FCDO Ministers and officials continue to raise the cases of both Mr Cornelius and Mr Ridley with the UAE authorities. We are urgently looking into the information provided by the family and seeking expert advice. We will follow up with the people concerned when we have more information.

Patricia Gibson: The proposed EU-UK youth mobility scheme would have allowed 18 to 30-year-old UK citizens to work and study in the EU without barriers that the Government’s Brexit have created, yet the Tories and the Labour party immediately rebuffed the offer. What is the message to young people across the UK who are watching opportunities being blocked by Westminster?

Nusrat Ghani: The EU scheme requires people between the ages of 18 and 35—I did not realise that you were still a young person at 35—to have absolutely free movement. That discussion has been had at length both in the Chamber and during the Brexit vote. What we do have is bilateral youth mobility schemes, which we are more than happy to propose with interested parties.

Bill Cash: On Gibraltar, the Minister has stated that our current EU negotiations are consistent with UK sovereignty. How will that be achieved, given our defence and RAF assets as well as any nuclear naval capability that the UK has in that region? How will our sovereignty be guaranteed at the border if there is a Schengen border post on the soil of Gibraltar?

David Rutley: My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to safeguard the sovereignty of Gibraltar, which is much cherished. He can also be assured that in the negotiations we will fully protect the operations and the independence of the UK’s military facilities in Gibraltar. I very much look forward to discussing this more fully in front of his Committee tomorrow morning.

Claire Hanna: Despite repeated claims by the Saudi authorities that they would abolish the death penalty for children, child defendants are still regularly sentenced to death. Some 11 have been executed since 2015. Child defendants Abdullah al-Howaiti, Abdullah al-Derazi and Youssef al-Manasif have all received death sentences for crimes allegedly committed before the age of 18. In April 2020, Saudi authorities issued a royal decree purporting to abolish the death penalty, but that appears to have been an empty promise. Will the Minister intervene and impress on them their human rights obligations?

David Rutley: We continue to engage with the Saudi authorities on this and, as the hon. Member knows, we push back on the death penalty being used in any country around the world.

David Davis: When will the Foreign Office and the Home Office abandon their ridiculous pseudo security argument that is preventing the return of Shamima Begum and other   women and children from northern Syria? Our allies oppose that policy because they know that it risks turning those children into tomorrow’s terrorists.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about this matter, speaks with considerable authority on it. I have no doubt that his voice will be heard in both the Foreign Office and the Home Office.

Andrew Slaughter: Spain, Norway and Ireland are ready jointly to recognise Palestine as a state within weeks. Four other European countries look likely to follow suit, and France recently voted to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN. Is it not time that the UK Government joined their European partners in recognising Palestine?

Andrew Mitchell: As we have made clear, recognition of a Palestinian state cannot come at the beginning of the process, but it does not have to come at the end.

Tim Loughton: Could the Deputy Foreign Secretary update us on the state of our relations with Djibouti, and his assessment of the impact of the UK recognising the memorandum of understanding between Ethiopia and Somalia on  the development of the port of Berbera? Does he  have any plans to visit Djibouti? If so, may I give him some advice?

Andrew Mitchell: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have visited Djibouti, without suffering the fate that I am so sorry he suffered. As he knows, we are taking up this matter with the authorities in Djibouti.

Richard Burgon: Israel’s deliberate and wilful starvation of Gaza is a war crime, yet the Government deflect all questions on UNRWA funding by saying that it runs until the end of April. We are here—today is the last day of April. If the Government do not restore UNRWA funding, are they not aiding and abetting Israeli war crimes?

Andrew Mitchell: I have made very clear the Government’s position on UNRWA. We are in a process, and after it has been completed I will report to the House.

Andrea Jenkyns: Ahmed Ali Alid, the Moroccan asylum seeker convicted last week of murdering 70-year-old Terence Carney, wandered through 13 European countries before entering the UK illegally and claiming asylum. Does the Minister agree that we must redouble our efforts and work with international allies, and that we do not want criminals like that in our country?

David Rutley: I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns. I am not familiar with the case, but I will follow up and get back to her.

Port Talbot Steelworks

Jo Stevens: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Tata ending the statutory consultation on redundancies at Port Talbot steelworks.

David Davies: On 25 April Tata announced its strategic direction to proceed with its Port Talbot transformation, following the launch of the formal national consultation with the unions on 6 February. Technically, the consultation has not concluded at national or local level. The statutory consultation remains under way, and I understand that the company intends to move to local consultation with staff who may be affected.
This is a deeply concerning time for the Tata workforce and the wider community. I hold regular conversations and meetings with the unions and management, and will continue to do so as we develop interventions to build a brighter future for Port Talbot. On 15 September we announced an unprecedented £500 million Government grant as part of the £1.25 billion investment by Tata Steel to build a new electric arc furnace. Tata Steel employs more than 8,000 people, including at Port Talbot. All those jobs— along with many thousands more in the supply chain—would be under threat were it not for the agreement that we struck. The transformation will be difficult but the funding has saved 5,000 jobs in the company. It is not the case that we have paid money to put people out of work—we have paid a lot of money to save 5,000 jobs. We are also looking to modernise production and ensure that steelmaking in south Wales can continue for generations to come.
Going beyond that, to support those affected by Tata’s decision we have put £100 million towards the creation of the transition board, which I chair, and which includes representatives of the UK and Welsh Governments, local authorities and industry. The funding includes £80 million from the UK Government and £20 million from Tata—nothing as yet from the Welsh Government, but we hope that there will be some. It will be used to achieve the transition board’s priorities, the first of which is to support those affected employees to find new, well-paid jobs. The board’s priorities also include supporting businesses in the supply chain and the longer-term regeneration of the region.
In its most recent meeting last week the transition board endorsed a local economic action plan, which will act as a road map for how best to use the funding to support those affected. While the ongoing consultation is a matter between the trade unions and the company, we will continue discussions with all parties. We hope a resolution is found that avoids industrial action. The Government will continue to work closely with industry to secure a sustainable and competitive future for the Welsh steel sector.
I am confident of a good future for Port Talbot and the region, with the UK Government progressing the bid by Associated British Ports to the next stage for up to £160 million of funding to support our nascent floating offshore wind industry, and our progress towards establishing the Celtic freeport, backed by £26 million of UK Government funding.

Jo Stevens: Last Thursday’s news was a gut punch for workers in Port Talbot, with economic consequences that could reverberate across south Wales for decades. Last month, I met workers at the plant. The sense of the threat to nearly 3,000 people’s livelihoods was all-consuming. The wider supply chain in Llanwern, Shotton and Trostre is vulnerable, too. We again urge Tata not to make any irreversible decisions before a general election.
My hon. Friends the Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) have been proud vocal advocates for their constituents. In contrast, the Government have forked out £500 million of taxpayers’ cash for the loss of 3,000 jobs. That is their deal and they own it.
In addition, the loss of sovereign steelmaking is a fundamental threat to our UK economy and security. It will constrain our ability to build the floating offshore wind we need to lower energy bills, deliver energy security and create the jobs of the future.
We are now around a month away from blast furnace No. 5 potentially closing, so what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the closure on job losses at the plant and in the supply chain across Wales? With the talks ongoing between unions and Tata this week, does the Secretary of State, like me, want to see an agreement from Tata that compulsory redundancies will be avoided? What steps will he take to encourage such an agreement? He has said that no one will be left behind if they lose their jobs. Will he publish the local economic plan that the transition board has agreed as the basis for its investment decisions?
With Labour’s national wealth fund, the future of UK steel will be fuelled by the skills, talent and ambition of Welsh steelworkers, but until the country is given the chance to have its say at a general election, I want workers across Wales to know that Labour Members have their backs.

David Davies: Let me take the hon. Lady’s points one by one. First, the £500 million investment will save 3,000 jobs. We are not paying money to throw people out of work; we do not want to see anyone thrown out of work. Tata has made a decision to close blast furnaces based on the losses it is making. When it came to us, we said, “What can we do to keep people in work?” This was the plan it came up with.
Secondly, the plan will have no impact on sovereign steelmaking. The hon. Lady, if she talks to Tata, will understand—[Interruption.] She is chuntering, but all the iron ore that goes into the blast furnaces comes from abroad, all the coal that is turned into coke comes in from abroad, and all the limestone comes in from abroad. It therefore has no impact whatever on our sovereign steelmaking ability. In fact, we have 8 million tonnes of scrap steel in this country, much of which has been exported abroad. We are going to use that scrap steel and put it in the electric arc furnace, which will increase our sovereign ability.
The hon. Lady says that the plan will have an impact on our ability to create floating offshore wind. Last time, she said it would have an impact on our ability to create battleships. She needs to understand that battleships are made using steel plate and that floating offshore wind turbines are also made using steel plate. Steel plate  is not made by Tata at Port Talbot. Tata at Port Talbot produces coil, which is thin and not strong enough to make either battleships or floating offshore wind turbines.
The hon. Lady asked about the number of people affected. We have been very clear about that from the start. [Interruption.] I am trying to answer the hon. Lady’s questions. She asked the questions; I listed them and I am answering them. She asked about the number of jobs affected. We have said all along that we expect it to be around 2,800, but it is for Tata to confirm that once it has gone through the statutory consultation procedure.
The hon. Lady asked whether we would encourage Tata to come to an agreement so that there are no compulsory redundancies. Of course, we would. We do not want anyone to be made redundant against their wishes. We did not want this process to happen in the first place, but as I said to her several times, Tata came to the UK Government with a threat to pull out, which would have cost 8,000 jobs and the entire supply chain.
The hon. Lady asked if the local area action plan can be published. It is not fully finalised yet—it is a road map—but she will surely be aware that the current First Minister was sitting on the board as the economic development Minister. The Labour economic development Minister in the Senedd is on the board. The local Member of Parliament is on the board, as is the local Senedd Member, the chief executive of the local authority, and the representatives of three trade unions, so it is hardly a secret document. It is not as if the transition board is meeting in conditions of great secrecy.
If the hon. Lady has any further questions, I am more than happy to answer them.

John Redwood: When will the Government do something about the very high energy prices in this country, which have been made high by regulations and taxes? Does my right hon. Friend not accept that any kind of steelmaking will be extremely difficult if we have uncompetitive energy, and is it not wrong to import such materials, because it will mean even more carbon dioxide emissions, as well as destroying jobs here?

David Davies: We have looked carefully at the losses that Tata is making, which have come about partly because of the age of the infrastructure. In fact, Tata has had to close down the furnaces at the Morfa coke ovens within the last few weeks. The UK Government are fully cognisant of the cost of energy at the moment, which is why Tata has already benefited from many of the schemes that we have introduced over the past few years, will begin to benefit from the British industry supercharger scheme shortly, and will benefit from the carbon border adjustment mechanism at the start of 2027.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: Despite what the Secretary of State may claim, the Government are investing in support of plans that will lead to approximately 2,800 job cuts, along with an irreversible cut in the capacity to produce virgin steel. Tata has announced that it will open a voluntary redundancy scheme on 15 May. Can the Secretary of State update the House  on what he expects the redundancy packages to include, and will he join me in condemning threats that the company appears to have made to withdraw enhanced redundancy packages if industrial action goes ahead?

David Davies: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions directly. The value of the redundancy packages will have to be agreed between Tata and the trade unions, but Tata has made it very clear that it wants to go well beyond statutory redundancy. It has put out several figures, some of which could be more generous if there is no industrial action. I do not want to see industrial action, but I do not condemn the unions either; I think that they have played a very positive role in discussions on the transition board and outside it, and I understand the strength of feeling among people at Port Talbot.
As for the two other points made by the hon. Gentleman, let me say this again, and say it clearly, so that everyone can understand it. Tata came to the UK Government and said that it was going to pull out of steelmaking in south Wales. That decision would have cost 8,000 jobs, as well as, we think, about 12,700 in the wider supply chain. Officials from the Department for Business and Trade wanted to come up with a plan that would save as many jobs as possible, which is where the arc furnace plan has come from. That plan will save 5,000 jobs, with a Government investment of half a billion pounds. It is not the outcome that anyone wants, but it is a better outcome to see 2,800 jobs lost than to see 8,000 lost. Neither is a good outcome, but that is what we wanted to achieve.
Let me repeat that this is not really about a sovereign ability to produce virgin steel. All the elements of steelmaking are being imported from abroad. We are not about to start opening up iron ore mines. Steel is produced here with iron ore from abroad, limestone from abroad, and coke made from coal from abroad. We cannot do this by ourselves. At the same time, we have 8 million tonnes of steel that is being exported. We will be making use of a resource that is already in our country.

Holly Mumby-Croft: Back home in Scunthorpe, we watch very closely what is happening in Port Talbot. What work has been done to determine the quality of those 8 million tonnes of scrap and whether it will be suitable for use in the electric arc furnaces? May I also ask my right hon. Friend to reflect on this point? When it comes to sovereign capability, the issue is not always what you are doing and choose to make; it sometimes comes down to what you may need to make at some point in the future. May I remind my right hon. Friend that we have a perfectly good mine full of coke and coal in Cumbria, and that there is an awful lot of limestone under the ground in this country as well?

David Davies: My hon. Friend is right that if we wanted to, we could probably find iron ore, coke, coal and limestone in the UK, but I do not see any great enthusiasm at the moment for opening up the mines to do that. As for the 8 million tonnes of scrap in the UK that will go into the arc furnaces, officials from the Department for Business and Trade and EY have gone over very carefully the business plan being put forward by Tata. Let me point out to my hon. Friend that not  only are the UK Government investing half a billion pounds, but Tata is investing £750 million, so Tata obviously feels that there is a good, strong, commercial case for building that arc furnace, and is putting its money where its mouth is.

Stephen Kinnock: The Port Talbot steelworkers in my constituency have given their life to the steel industry and to Tata Steel. The reckless deal that has been done by the UK Government and Tata is a hammer blow for them, and we hope that there is still time for the employer and the unions to come together, drop the bad deal for steel, and adopt the compelling and robust multi-union deal instead.
May I ask the Secretary of State about the role of contractors in all this? Everyone knows that for every job lost in a steelworks, between two and three more are lost through supply chains and contractors, so the figure of 2,800 that is being used is a massive underestimate of the devastating impact, as there will be job losses through supply chains and subcontractors. Does he agree that the number of job losses will be far higher than 2,800 if this reckless deal is adopted? If so, does he agree that it is time for everyone to pull back from the brink and adopt the multi-union plan, which offers us a bridge to the future, rather than the cliff edge that is currently being pursued?

David Davies: Clearly, there will be an impact on those in the supply chain; there has been absolutely no doubt about that. At the last transition board meeting, at which the hon. Gentleman was present, we discussed that, and we agreed that we would want to support anyone in the supply chain who has been affected, but we cannot start putting numbers on this. It would be irresponsible to start guessing the number of people who will lose their job, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there will clearly be an effect.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a reckless plan, but ours was the only plan on the table. He keeps suggesting that we adopt the Syndex plan, but it is not a plan unless Tata agrees to it. I have discussed the Syndex plan with senior management at Tata and with the head of Tata Holdings, Mr Chandrasekaran, in Mumbai. He does not believe that it is commercially viable, and he believes that it would be technically far too difficult to try to build an electric arc furnace on the site of the steel melt shop.

Stephen Kinnock: indicated dissent.

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I do not know what the answer is; he says that it is possible to implement the Syndex plan, but Tata says that it is not. What the hon. Gentleman has to realise is that it is not the UK Government he has to convince; it is Tata. The UK Government have never said that they would be against the Syndex plan. It is Tata that has to be persuaded.

Robert Buckland: I commend my right hon. Friend for his comments, and for reminding us that half a billion pounds is no small beer when it comes to intervention in a private industry. There are clearly difficulties with the transition, and a lot of us who care deeply about the steel industry in Wales and  Britain are worried about our capacity to do what we need to in the future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) said. What ongoing discussions are there on whether Tata will keep one of the blast furnaces open for longer than is set out in the plan, in which they are to be shut down by the end of this year?

David Davies: I have had that discussion with senior management at Tata, as have members of the Labour party, trade unions and many others. Tata faces losses of over £1 million a day as a result of keeping the two blast furnaces open. It says that those losses would continue even if one was functioning, because, first, it would have to make significant capital expenditure on blast furnace 4 for that to go ahead, and, secondly, it would have to import all the coke that goes into that blast furnace, as the coke ovens were shut down with the agreement of the unions, because of health and safety concerns. Then Tata would face the additional technical problem of trying to build an electric arc furnace on the same site as a steel melt shop containing hundreds of tonnes of molten steel that is poured off into casters. That is why it has said very clearly that it will not entertain the proposal. The UK Government have never said that we would not entertain the proposal. If Tata wanted to come forward with a plan to build the arc furnace, using the grant that the Government have put forward, while keeping one blast furnace open for longer, of course the Government would be open to discussion of that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. In the Netherlands, political pressure has resulted in Tata investing in an electric arc furnace and direct reduced iron technology, all while protecting jobs and keeping blast furnaces open. The German Government are spending €2.2 billion—over four times more than the UK is spending—on transitioning the country’s steel industry towards hydrogen. Why is the UK so uniquely incapable of effective investment in our strategic steel future?

David Davies: A few people seem to have the idea that building a DRI plant would resolve this problem. The first point to remember is that if a DRI plant were built on the site, it would probably save another 200 jobs. There is a plant in Texas, run by Voestalpine, which I believe produces 2 million tonnes or so of steel every year and employs 200 people, so a DRI plant will not resolve the problem. Clearly, DRI plants require access to a regular and affordable amount of natural gas. There is, however, nothing whatsoever to stop Tata, at some point in future, building a DRI plant to go along with the electric arc furnace, if it believes that that is commercially sensible. Even if it were to do that, it would not really resolve the problem that we face: 2,800 jobs being lost in Port Talbot. At best, it would save another 200 jobs.

Jessica Morden: I am sorry, but this Government’s lack of ambition for our steel industry is just disgraceful. As many of the Secretary of State’s constituents work in Llanwern, he should understand that decisions made about Port Talbot have a direct impact on Newport and can lead to problems with  securing volume for Llanwern. We are looking at potential redundancies, and uncertainty about the long-term future of the plant. It is not too late for the Secretary of State to stand up for his constituents, show more ambition for our steel industry—as other countries do—argue for a fairer transition, and try to avoid compulsory redundancies. Why will he not do that for his own constituents?

David Davies: We have acknowledged all along that under the proposals, Port Talbot planned to close down the pickle line at Llanwern, but not until the electric arc furnace was built. We discussed that at the last meeting of the transition board, and we all agreed that just as we want to help everyone in Port Talbot, we want to help anyone affected in Llanwern.
The hon. Lady keeps talking about a lack of ambition. We can all dream about a situation in which blast furnace 4 is kept open for another six years, but what we cannot do is force Tata to continue accepting losses of over £1 million a day in order for that to happen. I have to say that there has been a lack of responsibility on the part of some Labour Members—though not any present in this Chamber—who seem to have gone around suggesting that they have a special, costed secret plan that would save all those jobs. They do not. They have not put any kind of a costed plan to any senior management in Tata. They have never sat down and said, “If you do this, we will give you this, and that way, we could save all those jobs.” They have simply gone around saying that they want to see all the jobs saved. We all want to see every single job saved, but we cannot force Tata to continue to take losses of over £1 million a day.

Christine Jardine: I come from an area of the country that suffered from industrial decline two generations ago, and the human impact of what we see happening to Port Talbot will blight the current generation. We talk a lot about a transition to a green economy. When will the Government invest in the national skills strategy that we need to provide? People in Port Talbot are about to lose their jobs, and redundancy payments do not last forever. A generation will be blighted. They need skills for the 21st century, so will the Government commit to a national skills strategy?

David Davies: The hon. Lady asks about the money to support the town of Port Talbot. I have said already that there is £500 million to build an arc furnace that will save thousands of jobs. There is £15 million going into regenerating the town. There is £26 million of funding for the freeport, £7.5 million of funding for Launchpad and, as far as skills are concerned, £80 million from the UK Government primarily to retrain people. There is another £20 million coming in from Tata. There has not been one penny from the Welsh Government towards this endeavour. They have been able to find £120 million to spend on more Senedd Members, and £30 million to spend on 20 mph road signs, and we have just learned that they have lost £60 million, having set up a bank, but they have not been able to find one penny to support the steelworkers at Port Talbot.

Kevin Brennan: Is this not just the tail end of a Government who abandoned the words “industrial strategy” a decade ago when I asked questions on this matter? Why have the Government not had the  ambition and the vision to realise the potential? For example, if there were a plate mill on the site, it could produce the steel for the substructures and wind turbines that are planned to be built in the Celtic sea around the Milford Haven and Port Talbot freeport? There is no industrial strategy, there is no vision and there is no joined-upness. There are just massive sticking plasters from this Government.

David Davies: There are discussions going on about the possibility of building a plate mill on the site when the electric arc furnace is completed. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent a plate mill from being built. The hon. Gentleman will not be aware of all the discussions going on, but I say respectfully to him that a plate mill will not save 2,800 jobs. We face the loss of a significant number of jobs as a result of the decision to close down the blast furnaces, and even if a plate mill, a direct reduced iron plant or a hot zinc dip line were built on the site—all of which are reasonable things to consider—it would not solve the problem that 2,800 people are facing the loss of their jobs. That is why the £500 million for the arc furnace was so important, as was the £80 million for the transition board.

Gerald Jones: We talked earlier about the supply chain. The repercussions of this decision will be felt across south Wales, so can I ask the Secretary of State directly whether he has secured any commitment whatsoever from Tata about the future of the workers at those downstream facilities across south Wales?

David Davies: Yes, Tata has been clear that it was originally going to close those sites but it now expects all those sites to remain open. During the process of building the arc furnace, while the blast furnaces are shut down, it will be bringing steel in from elsewhere to make sure that the product is going into those other plants.

Nia Griffith: With the closure of the coke ovens making the viable lifespan of the blast furnaces all the more precarious, and the electric arc furnace still being a long way off, we will rapidly reach a situation where Port Talbot can no longer supply the Trostre works in Llanelli in my constituency, so what talks has the Secretary of State had with Tata bosses about securing high-quality interim supplies for Trostre and securing all the jobs there?

David Davies: I have spoken to Tata on that very issue. It has been clear that it would have to import steel to feed Trostre, and it is willing to do that. The timeline for the electric arc furnace is ambitious, but work is ongoing: the groundworks will start very shortly, the application for planning permission should go in in the autumn, and hopefully it will be turned round and dealt with by early next year. It will then take about two years to build the electric arc furnace.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State casually discards 2,800 jobs and is so uninterested in the ongoing effect on the rest of the economy in south Wales that he has not even made an assessment of what the economic impact will be on the south Wales valleys more generally. Can he clear up for us precisely how many other people’s jobs are likely to be affected?  Is he aware that, in the last few months, we have had 500 jobs go at UK Windows and Doors in the Rhondda and 100 jobs go in the last 24 hours at Everest 2020 in the Rhondda? As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) says, it does not feel as if the Government have an industrial strategy. Nor does it feel as if they have an anti-poverty strategy. For that matter, they do not have a levelling-up strategy either, do they? Is it not time we had a new Secretary of State for Wales, so that we can get on and have a proper plan for the economy of south Wales?

David Davies: I am sorry to have to say this to the hon. Gentleman, but it is slightly insulting for him to suggest that the tone in which I have set out the answers suggests casual disregard or a lack of interest. I assure him that nothing whatsoever in the Wales Office at the moment is more important than securing the future of Port Talbot. I am sorry, but frankly, while this Government are putting up £500 million to ensure the future of steelmaking in south Wales and demonstrating an interest in making steel, some Opposition Members are more interested in making headlines.

Jonathan Edwards: My constituents who work in Port Talbot inform me that there has been no progress on enhanced redundancy negotiations between the unions and Tata. Given the scale of the public investment involved, will the British Government use their leverage to ensure that Tata treats its workforce with a degree of dignity?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that Tata now needs to come forward with a bit more information about who exactly we can expect to see being made redundant and what their current skillsets are, so that we can begin targeting the help. The challenge up until now is that we have not had the information on who is being made redundant. Tata has made it clear that it will not automatically be the people on the blast furnaces, for example, who are made redundant, because it hopes to retain some of the people who are working there but offer redundancy to people in other parts of the plant. We have not had the information as of yet, but I think the time has come to have that information. We of course want to ensure that any redundancy packages are as generous as possible.

Justin Madders: My constituents who work at the Shotton plant are very worried about the news they are hearing and concerned about their colleagues’ futures, but they are also wondering what it means for them. Clearly there will be knock-on effects, not just in the supply chain but in other Tata plants around the country, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the short, medium and long-term impact of these decisions on other plants?

David Davies: We were very clear that while the arc furnace was being built, we wanted to make absolutely certain that all those other plants around Wales were able to receive product to finish, and Tata has been very clear that that will happen. It will have to bring it in from elsewhere over the next two to three years, but that will happen. There will therefore not be the impact that the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about.
Of course, that is possible only because of what some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have described as a reckless deal. What would have been reckless would have been for us to see Tata in an office and say, “Okay, you’re going to make 8,000 people redundant and shut down all these sites, and there’s nothing for us to do about it.” That would have been reckless. What we actually did was to come forward with a £500 million package of taxpayers’ money, and rightly so, to support the continuation of steelmaking in Port Talbot and to ensure that all the other plants in Wales—Shotton, Trostre and Llanwern—continue to receive product during that interim period, so that we do not see significant job losses anywhere else.

Mike Kane: It is an increasingly dangerous world, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said, so will the Secretary of State release an impact assessment on Britain losing its sovereign capability to produce virgin steel?

David Davies: It is starting to feel a bit like groundhog day here. Can I explain again that the iron ore, the limestone and the coke are all coming in from abroad? There is no sovereign capability to make steel in the blast furnaces at Port Talbot. However, we are already producing high-quality steel in arc furnaces that is used in the defence industry. I recently met Sheffield Forgemasters, which is producing steel for nuclear submarines in an electric arc furnace in the United Kingdom.

Jamie Stone: We have great hopes and plans to build offshore floating wind structures in the Cromarty firth and the surrounding area, which would be a fantastic use of the great fabrication skills we have there, but do the Government recognise that the continued production of steel—and very probably the increased production of steel—will be crucial to this plan becoming a reality?

David Davies: Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have a means of producing steel that can be used to build floating offshore wind turbines. Technically, that is quite difficult to do. It would require either steel plate or a very heavily reinforced version of steel coil. I know that discussions are going on between Tata and at least one of the likely major investors in floating offshore wind turbines to ensure that the steel can be made, and we hope that we will use steel from the electric arc furnace to do just that.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his answers. It is clear that he is keen to find solutions, but obviously many on this side of the Chamber—indeed, on both sides—are a bit concerned. Bearing in mind that steel produced in Port Talbot is the backbone of much construction in Northern Ireland—which prompted the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to highlight protocol problems with the Prime Minister in the past—I too want to express my deep concern and ask the Minister to explain where the steel for our construction sector in Northern Ireland will come from if the Government are unable to step in and save jobs in Port Talbot.

David Davies: In the short term, I assume that the steel going into the industry in Northern Ireland does not come directly from Port Talbot. It probably comes from some of the other finishing plants. I do not know the full detail of the exact grades of steel that go into the Northern Ireland construction industry, but I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman.
Tata has made it absolutely clear that it does not expect any disruption in supply while the arc furnace is being built. Everyone I have spoken to—not just those at Tata, but independent experts—has said that 90% of the grades currently produced using blast furnaces can be produced using an electric arc furnace, and that the technology of electric arc furnace steel production is rapidly improving, so I would not expect there to be any disruption to supplies in the medium or long term.

Telegraph Media Group Ltd:  Acquisition

Lucy Frazer: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the proposed acquisition of the Telegraph Media Group by RB Investco Ltd. I will refer to the Telegraph Media Group as the Telegraph and to RB Investco Ltd as the purchaser.
As the House will know, the sale of the Telegraph is currently subject to the media mergers process. Today, I would like to confirm that the purchaser has notified me of its intention to sell the call option agreement that gives it the ability to buy the Telegraph, in effect withdrawing from the purchase of the newspaper. This step follows the intervention I made on the merger situation on 26 January 2024, both to issue a public interest intervention notice, or PIIN, and to issue a pre-emptive action order. It also follows on from my announcement of 19 March on my assessment, following the reports of the Competition and Markets Authority and Ofcom, that I was minded to refer the merger to a further, more detailed phase 2 investigation. I have taken these decisions on the basis of the evidence in the case, and I will continue to do so.
I am now updating the House on the procedures and protections for the public interest that are in place in respect of the Telegraph, given the sale process that I understand will begin shortly. I have informed the parties that it would not be appropriate at this stage for me to take a decision on whether or not to make a phase 2 reference. In my view, the relevant merger situation remains in contemplation. I therefore continue to have powers, under the order, to prevent actions by the parties to the merger that might prejudice any phase 2 reference to the CMA or make it more difficult for me to take action as a result of my final decision following such a reference. The order prohibits the parties from making significant organisational and staff changes, including to the editorial team, without my consent. These restrictions remain in place. However, I have now agreed to derogations from the order that will give the parties the flexibility and regulatory space to make all reasonable preparations for the sale of the call option agreement.
It is important to be clear that I will not be engaging with prospective buyers, nor selecting the preferred bidder. The sale process will be run by RedBird IMI alone. My decision on any further derogation from the order that RedBird IMI will need to receive to complete the sale of the call option agreement will be made according to my powers and obligations under the Enterprise Act 2002, and it will be based on the public interest, rather than a qualitative decision on who should buy the titles. Any transfer to new ownership will also potentially be subject to the media mergers regime, as set out in the Act.
It is appropriate for me to say a few words about the underlying matters. I initiated this process under the powers I have under the Enterprise Act to protect the accurate presentation of news and the free expression of opinion in newspapers. These powers are vital. The freedom of the press to express opinions, to criticise and to hold power to account are all a fundamental part of our democracy. It is often said that the freedom of the press protects not the press’s freedom but ours.
It would not be appropriate for a foreign state to interfere with the accurate presentation of our news or the freedom of expression in newspapers. Although these powers under the existing media merger regime are broad, the Government have taken action to rule out newspaper and news magazine mergers involving any influence, ownership or control by foreign states. We have done that by amending the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which will shortly return to this House.
As a nation, we are a proud, open democracy and a strong trading power with a vibrant economy. Although we are rightly limiting powers to interfere with our democracy, as many other states do, in terms of foreign investment more generally we remain open for business.
I end by recognising the strength of feeling in this House and the other place, and by recognising the work done by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and in particular by the right hon. Baroness Stowell of Beeston.
I commend this statement to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
From the very start, Labour had questions about the proposed sale of some of our country’s most highly influential and historical news publications. We share legitimate public interest concerns about the accurate presentation of news, free expression of opinion and fair competition. We cannot take those freedoms for granted.
It is disappointing that this weak Government did not do the right thing from the start. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is not about singling out the United Arab Emirates, our important partners? She said that it is not appropriate for a foreign state to interfere with the accurate presentation of news, and I am glad that she has come round to that point of view, but surely no Government anywhere in the world, including ours, should own any news publications.
Labour will always act to safeguard the UK’s strong and independent free press, regardless of any publication’s political persuasion. We will champion its right to hold us to account. We will safeguard the freedom to scrutinise, to expose wrongdoing and to speak truth to power, because this is about protecting our democracy.
We, of course, welcome investment that makes a valuable contribution to our diverse media landscape, so we will closely follow this auction process. Can the Secretary of State give us more information on the timescale for the auction? What discussions has she had with trade unions representing the staff of the Telegraph Media Group? What steps will she take to ensure that this is a free and open sale, and will she keep the House updated? What will she do to ensure a competitive media landscape into the future?
It is important that the Secretary of State gets this right. Especially in an election year, our democracy is too precious to leave to chance.

Lucy Frazer: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming this statement on the position in which we now find ourselves. I reiterate her point that the UAE is an important trading partner. The legislation relates to all foreign states. We welcome our relationship with the UAE.
The hon. Lady says that this is an important point, and I have been very conscious of this matter since it first fell on my desk. From the outset, I have raised and dealt with the concerns in this case. Although she raises it now, and I am not looking at the complete record, I do not recall any occasion on which she has raised this matter either directly with me or in this House.
Freedom of the press is an important principle that we are upholding. As I said in my statement, I was already taking steps under the broad powers in the Enterprise Act in a quasi-judicial fashion, which limits the other measures that one can take.
On the timescale, I understand that certainty is needed for the publication and for those who work for it. I expect and hope that this process will be concluded in short order, understanding, of course, that it is important for the sale process to take place. This is a regulatory process, and I will update Members and the House at appropriate stages.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Caroline Dinenage: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the decision of RedBird IMI, in effect, to withdraw from purchasing the Telegraph. Freedom and plurality are, of course, cornerstones of our media, and political interventions should always be the last resort, but I agree with her that it is absolutely unacceptable for foreign states to have the potential to interfere with the independence and freedom of our press. What is RedBird’s role during the period it takes for a prospective buyer to be found? Will it be able to hold a non-controlling stake in the Telegraph at the end of this process?

Lucy Frazer: The position on the governance of the Telegraph during this period is the same as it has been since I started this regulatory process. I have been concerned at all times to ensure that the independence of the directors, the managers and the editorial team remains. That is why I brought forward a pre-emptive order, which would restrict any changes in that regard. A sales process will now take place, and it will have to follow any regulations that are in force and that will govern it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Kirsty Blackman: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. My Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and the SNP more widely are pleased about the decision and today’s announcement. It feels as though the protection of the independence and legitimacy of the media is something people feel strongly about across the House, no matter which party they represent. I am pleased that everybody is speaking with one voice on the blocking of foreign interference in our media outlets.
I wonder about the way in which this process has happened. Is she going to have a look at how it worked and whether or not RB Investco and the UAE were able to exploit loopholes to ensure that the process took longer than it could have taken in order for this decision to be made? Will she look at whether there are ways of tightening up the Enterprise Act and the legislation to ensure that those decisions can be made more quickly and loopholes cannot be exploited?
Legacy media outlets are struggling in a lot of ways, and many of them may be looking at alternative ways of funding what they are doing. Will she make it clear that, like us, she feels that that freedom of the press from foreign interference is incredibly important, no matter what the financial situation of the companies in question?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Lady talks about tightening up the process. We significantly tightened it in the amendment that the Government tabled in the Lords and is coming back to this House today. That will indeed make sure that there can be no ownership, control or influence by a foreign state, because, as she makes clear, that is an important part of our democracy.

John Whittingdale: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that at the end of this week we have World Press Freedom Day, so her statement is particularly welcome. I congratulate her on the scrupulous way in which she has undertaken her responsibilities. She will be aware that the Enterprise Act was written before the internet existed and that it is six years since Ofcom said that there needs to be fundamental review of our media merger regime. Will she therefore say what progress has been made on bringing the entire regime up to date to take account of the massive growth of online news distribution?

Lucy Frazer: I am very grateful for all the support my right hon. Friend gave me when he was in the Department and for the expertise he brought with him on the wider media and so many other matters. He makes an important point: the media landscape is changing. That is why we are looking at whether online news should be included in the scope of Ofcom’s powers.

Sarah Owen: A number of staff at the Telegraph Media Group will be worried about their jobs, so what conversations has the Secretary of State had with trade union representatives of staff at TMG? I have just met the amazing bright, talented students at Luton Sixth Form College who are visiting today, some of whom may want a future in journalism, so will she say what impact this statement may have on media jobs and our ability to ensure a competitive media landscape in the future?

Lucy Frazer: One measure I took when issuing the public interest intervention notice and the pre-emptive order that followed it was to ensure that, whatever decision I took ultimately on this case, TMG was not prejudiced by the potential purchase. The pre-emptive order has always said that there should be no changes to the management or the editorial team of the Telegraph without my consent, to ensure that any changes in the interim would not be prejudiced by any ultimate sale, so I can give the hon. Lady the reassurance that measures  are already in place to protect the staff at TMG in terms of this purchase. By the order today, I have highlighted that that pre-emptive order in relation to those staff continues.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for coming forward with this statement and for making the right decision. Does this whole process not demonstrate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said earlier, which was that we are dealing with a digital world with analogue tools and it takes far too long? It also led to the peculiar situation whereby both she and the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) have had to come to the Dispatch Box despite being unable to say anything in answer to any questions, which was slightly unfair on them. I know that an amendment is coming through on another Bill, but we really need to speed this process up by saying simply that no foreign state could own any of our media. We now need to look at the online elements of that as well if we can.

Lucy Frazer: Let me offer my right hon. Friend reassurance, because that legislation is coming to the House today. I know that a lot of Members of this House and of the other place raised those concerns, and it is right that we brought forward an amendment to put absolutely beyond doubt that fact that it would be inappropriate for a foreign state to own our news media. That is why we built on Baroness Stowell’s amendment to put that beyond doubt and to put it in a form that works well. I am grateful to Baroness Stowell for the work she is putting into her amendment. I recognise the other point my right hon. Friend made about online media and it is absolutely something we are looking at.

Jamie Stone: Thanks are due to the Secretary of State for this decision. The Spectator will be free from foreign influence and can carry on describing me as, “A languid old gent who represents a craggy constituency somewhere near Norway.” As she says, that is freedom of speech and one must put up with what one must put up with—good luck to these eminent publications. Does she realise, however, that also fundamental to democracy and freedom of speech is the continued survival of our myriad local newspapers the length and breadth of this sceptred isle? They are in difficulty and if they go down, we will be the poorer for it. I do not expect an answer now, but may I at least ask her to look at this issue as one that is important?

Lucy Frazer: I absolutely understand that and I have done a number of roundtables where I have talked to the local media sector. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the past we have had a local news fund. He will also be aware of the measures we have on business rates for local news media. I am very conscious of the need to support our local media, which play a vital role in ensuring that we have local democracy. He will also know that one measure we put in at the mid-term review was to ensure that where the BBC took steps in spaces where there was already a competitive media market, it should engage more widely with those it was affecting.

John Redwood: I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s clear statement of policy that foreign states should not be allowed to take over press and media in this country, which is a welcome development. I hope that in the proposals for amending the law it will be clear that the policy relates not only to Governments but to nationalised industries, public authorities or companies in which states have significant influence because of their shareholdings. If that is not set out, such bodies may try to find ways around the law. I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend is up to that, but can we please have an amendment that absolutely nails press freedom in the way we want it to exist—free of influence from foreign states?

Lucy Frazer: I understand my right hon. Friend’s points. When we bring forward legislation, it is important that it does not have loopholes. As a Department, we thought very carefully about how we can protect against that. When the Bill comes back to this House this afternoon, he will see that we have defined foreign state ownership very broadly. We have extended the definition to include not only ownership but control and influence.

Kevin Brennan: Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), may I press the Secretary of State? In her statement, she said that the order prohibits parties from making significant organisational and staff changes without her consent, and that the restrictions remain in place. Will she agree not to consent to any deal that involves significant job losses?

Lucy Frazer: Obviously, it would be entirely inappropriate to say what decision I might take when exercising a quasi-judicial function without looking at the evidence, which is exactly what I would do.

Alexander Stafford: I welcome the statement, not because of the UAE—after all, the UAE is a great diplomatic and trading partner of the UK—but because it gets rid of foreign involvement in our media. Will the Secretary of State say more about how online and television media will be affected by the order, because those are the growing media outlets? We have talked about freedom of the press, but will she advise us of how we can get rid of disinformation? In the UK, we have outlets such as Press TV and China Daily, which are propaganda arms of quite nefarious regimes, operating and working here. What are the Government doing to stop those nefarious activities poisoning the minds of our young people?

Lucy Frazer: There is so much that one could respond to in my hon. Friend’s question. I remind him that we are looking at the online news space, which is vital. It is important to emphasise that Ofcom already has significant powers in the broadcast space. It has already taken actions in relation to foreign involvement in our broadcast media and banned certain entities from operating. We always need to look at how we tackle misinformation, and we are doing so across Government as a whole.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her positivity in her responses. Will she highlight what steps can be taken to ensure that the scrambling that took place to protect freedom of British  speech and media from international corporations is not replicated? Will she consider providing legislative protection to that effect, which is vital as outside influencers seek to sway public perception for their own ends? That has to be recognised and protected against.

Lucy Frazer: It is important that we always have freedom of the press and that external forces do not interfere with that freedom. I will be making a speech to the Society of Editors this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman might wish to read, after I have delivered it. I am happy to consider the points he has made.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the statement and the decision by the Secretary of State. It is in our national interest to protect our free media. My question is about transparency and understanding the logic behind the decision. The Secretary of State said that she has taken into account the evidence. What key evidence did she take into account? What were the pertinent aspects of the evidence that led her to make that decision? Knowing that would give people outside the opportunity to look at the reasoning and rationale behind the decision.

Lucy Frazer: The first decision I took was that the threshold had been passed. I was concerned about interference with the accurate presentation of news and the freedom of the press. The evidence I saw enabled me to say that the threshold had been passed, and to ask Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the matter more broadly. They did that and they took some time to give me a very detailed report, which I further considered. In my letter sent in March, I set out the evidence from that report and my decision that I was minded to send the matter to phase 2 investigation. The letter in which I set out the evidence on which I relied has been published, I believe.

Christine Jardine: As a former journalist and a former member of the Society of Editors in Scotland, I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement because press freedom is vital in a democracy, as she says. The insidious influence of foreign states has to be protected against, not just in newspapers but, as we have heard, online and in television and radio. Does she agree that the matter is not settled with this step? We have to be continually aware of the danger of foreign interference and the insidious growth of that influence in our media by all means. Will the Government take that on board and continue to monitor the situation on a regular basis?

Lucy Frazer: Of course, the Government always keep matters under review. I can reassure the hon. Member that we have a robust system to deal with interference with press freedom. We had that in the Enterprise Act; my powers as Secretary of State under that Act in relation to interference with the accurate presentation of news and the freedom of the press were clear and robust. I took various decisions at each stage to ensure those matters were fully investigated. The hon. Member can also take reassurance from the fact that the legislation that will be coming back to the House this afternoon will put beyond that doubt, and set out that a foreign state cannot interfere with our newspapers. Every hon. Member who has expressed a view across the Chamber  is of the view, which I share, that a foreign state should not be able to control, influence or own a British newspaper.

Richard Foord: I welcome this intervention that means that the UAE cannot own Telegraph Media Group through RedBird IMI, but there is a suggestion that foreign Governments could potentially interfere with free speech at universities that host institutes partly funded by them. The Government-appointed director for freedom of speech and academic freedom has warned that foreign interference at universities is going on in the UK. What lessons, if any, will be instructive for the Government’s so-called university free speech tsar?

Lucy Frazer: I am wholly in favour of free speech and ensuring that people are not shut down for their views. The hon. Member needs to take up his points with those responsible for universities.

Points of Order

Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As our constituents look ahead to the May day bank holiday, in addition, on 1 May, Gujaratis and Maharashtrians in Harrow, across the UK and globally celebrate Gujarat Day and Maharashtra Day, marking the formation of the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in India back in 1960. The day is a moment of pride and celebration for all Gujaratis and Maharashtrians. It is a chance to honour the rich history, culture and traditions of both states, and, crucially, the often remarkable contribution of those of all faiths in both communities here in the UK. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you had notice of any intention by the Government to mark the contribution of both communities here in the UK?

Roger Gale: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. I have not had any indication that the Government intend to make a statement on this subject, but he has placed his point on the record.

Tommy Sheppard: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In almost nine years in this House I have never before raised a point of order, but I am obliged to do so now because of my exasperation with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. On 6 February, I wrote to Lord Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, asking for information about the UK’s decision to withdraw funding from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. To date, almost three months later, I have had neither acknowledgement nor response. Given what is happening in Gaza, the urgent need for humanitarian aid and the role of UNRWA in that, I find that quite unacceptable.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that there is widespread disquiet in this House about the fact that we cannot question the Foreign Secretary here in the Chamber. Now, not only is he not prepared to answer oral questions, but his Department is not answering written questions in a timeous manner. Can you please advise me of what action I and other Members might take to get a response from the Foreign Secretary and to hold that Department to account?

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving the Chair notice of his question. He will understand immediately that the Chair is not responsible for ministerial correspondence. I have noted what he has said, and of course it is the case that all Members should be entitled to receive timely replies. I trust that point will have been taken on board by those on the Government Front Bench.

Presentation of Bill

Tenant Farming Commissioner

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron presented a Bill to establish a Tenant Farming Commissioner; to make provision about the powers and duties of the commissioner, including powers in respect of payments under an Environmental Land Management scheme in cases where a tenant farmer has been evicted; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 208).

Public Amenities (Adoption  by Local Authorities)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Thomas: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to adopt public amenities in certain circumstances where specified minimum standards are met; and for connected purposes.
People living in Harrow View West in my constituency have faced a huge increase in their service charges since they purchased their properties. Built by Persimmon on part of the old Kodak site, neighbouring the beautiful Headstone Manor Park, the start of the River Crane, home to the only moated manor house in London—now Harrow Museum—and with good transport links, Harrow View West should be a great investment for the many young families who have moved into homes on that development.
Many residents, however, have been left very frustrated by rising service charges,
their powerlessness and inability to secure clear and transparent information about those service charges and other dreadful customer service. Persimmon Homes and its management company, Residential Management Group, are as a result the source of considerable dissatisfaction among the residents for their more than doubling of the service charge since the residents took ownership of their properties.
Not surprisingly, the residents now want Harrow Council to take over the ownership
of the public spaces on the development—the roads and the estate park—and the maintenance costs that are being forced on to their service charges. The residents note that others not living on their estate can access and enjoy the public spaces on the development for free, while they are being charged. Anyone can use the roads in the development to park on, to access Headstone Manor or the surrounding roads.
Despite the extra cost for the upkeep of these public spaces, residents point out that they still have to pay their council tax on top of the rising service charges. I am concerned that other developments being planned in Harrow, or built now, will see residents facing the same problems if new rules are not brought in urgently.
As the law stands at the moment, the decision as to who is responsible for the public spaces in big new developments is resolved at the planning stage. Councils all too often, and for understandable reasons after 14 years of funding cutbacks, are wary of taking on responsibility for new public space. Their negotiations with developers about how maintenance costs for any new roads, parks or playgrounds are funded often end with cash-strapped local authorities wanting those costs to be paid for first by the developer and then ultimately by the residents of the new developments. This form of leasehold has been labelled “fleecehold”, because it leads to higher costs for those living in newly built homes than for those faced by people who buy an older home on roads for which the local authorities are already responsible.
The Competition and Markets Authority has looked at this issue in detail during its market study into house building and has made it clear that it thinks that councils should have a legal duty to adopt the public spaces in new developments such as Harrow View West—the roads, pavements, play areas and open spaces. Crucially, it thinks that developers should have clearly set out responsibilities to meet high standards for those public spaces before they are handed over.
I understand why, after years of austerity, local councils want to avoid ownership of new estates and the responsibility for new public open spaces. Too often, they simply do not have the money to feel able to do the right thing. But that is not fair on those living in newly built estates who move in with great hopes, often with promises of low service charges, only suddenly to see rising service charges, which too often they have zero control over in practice. They have to deal with often unaccountable estate management companies, yet still have to pay often rising amounts of council tax.
Like, I expect, every Member in this House, many leaseholders in my constituency find themselves stuck, facing unjustified administration fees and charges, and ever-rising ground rents. Leaseholders find themselves dependent on developers, freeholders and their managing agent to take action, which often takes far longer than it should, particularly given those rocketing service charges.
At Trident Point in my constituency, residents were subject to regular and extended periods of lift outages. One constituent in the building is a wheelchair user. For him, lift outages meant that he was confined to his flat, deeply concerned about what would happen in an emergency. Leaseholders were initially told by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing that residents would have to cover the costs of the lift refurbishment, which caused significant stress and worry. Eventually, the housing association accepted that the lifts were still under warranty, so no costs were passed on. The lifts were eventually refurbished and completed earlier this year. It took far too long to sort out, but we got there in the end. I thank Harrow Law Centre, which supported residents on this issue at the time.
In another example in my constituency—this time, Kinleigh Folkard & Hayward were the developers—leaseholder residents waited more than three years for action to be taken by the managing agent, despite, again, rocketing service charges. Another developer, Jaspar development group, has caused difficulties for my constituents. Its managing agent keeps changing, service charges keep going up, and there is still no resolution of residents’ concerns.
This is also not the first time that I have seen leaseholders finding themselves financially responsible for the upkeep of what one would reasonably assume are public parks and public amenities. In my constituency, Fairview has built another development that includes a playground bordering the main road. It is managed by a management company on behalf of the freeholder. Residents are worried that there is no fencing between the playground and the road and some have witnessed children going into the road to retrieve footballs. It would seem sensible that all options, such as signage and fencing, should be considered to keep children safe in that playground, but residents have been told that it is not the local council that should undertake this work and that it is leaseholders who would have to foot the bill through their service  charges. The playground is not just for the children of residents but, rightly, for all children to enjoy, so surely that should mean that the playground is adopted by the local council.
I recognise that there has been some progress since the Law Commission published its three reports in July 2020 on leasehold reform. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022, which applied only to new lease agreements, was a step in the right direction, but it still leaves my constituents stuck in unfair leasehold arrangements. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, is very limited in scope. Although I welcome that Bill, it does not go far enough: it does not ban leasehold; it does not enact the recommendations of the Law Commission in full; and, crucially, it does not tackle the problem that my constituents have faced with unadopted roads and public facilities.
We on the Opposition Benches are clear that a future Labour Government would make commonhold the default tenure for all new properties. Indeed, as my Front-Bench colleagues have made it clear, we support enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, commonhold and right to manage in full.
In addition, my Bill would deliver the recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority that, where specified standards have been met with regard to public spaces, councils would then be mandated to adopt those public spaces. It is time for Ministers to come off the fence and implement those recommendations, for the benefit of my constituents on the old Kodak site and all those who are currently locked into this “fleecehold” model of housing. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gareth Thomas, Bill Esterson, Yvonne Fovargue, Sir Stephen Timms, Matt Rodda, Anna McMorrin, Dame Diana Johnson, Clive Efford, Ruth Cadbury, Matt Western, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi and Andy Slaughter present the Bill.
Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed (Bill 209).

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Programme (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 17 May 2023 (Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Programme) as varied by the Order of 20 November 2023 (Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: Programme (No. 2)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Lords Amendments 9, 12, 13, 19, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 104, 1 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 18, 20 to 25, 29, 30, 33 to 37, 39 to 103 and 105 to 148.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Fletcher.)
Question agreed to.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Roger Gale: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 35, 36, 42, 112, 117, 128 and 132 to 134. If those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 19 - Power to impose conduct requirements

Kevin Hollinrake: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 13, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 28, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 104, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 18, 20 to 25, 29 to 30, 33 to 37, 39 to 103 and 105 to 148.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to bring this groundbreaking Bill back to the House. It will drive innovation and deliver better outcomes for consumers across the UK by addressing barriers to competition in digital markets and tackling consumer rip-offs. We believe it strikes the right balance, not deterring investment from big tech while encouraging investment from challenger tech. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny and I commend the collaborative cross-party approach taken during the Bill’s passage to date.
I will start with the amendments that the Government made in the other place. They add vital new provisions to the Bill and I hope hon. Members will agree to them. Part 1 of the Bill establishes a new pro-competition regime for digital markets, which will be overseen and enforced by the Competition and Markets Authority’s digital markets unit. Following engagement with Members  in the other place, we have bolstered transparency provisions to require the CMA to publish more of the notices provided to firms designated with strategic market status, or SMS.
All interested parties will now be able to access the information contained in those notices, ensuring that there is greater clarity on the DMU’s decisions relating to SMS designation, conduct requirements and pro-competition interventions. A number of hon. Members have called for provisions addressing asymmetry of information to be introduced to the Bill, so we hope this change will be welcomed.
On part 2 of the Bill, which deals with wider competition reforms, hon. Members will recall that on Report the Government added a provision on litigation funding, whose purpose was to restore the previously held understanding of the status of litigation funding agreements under the Competition Act 1998. Those provisions were important in providing a route to justice for groups with limited resources—for example, our sub-postmasters.
That step was taken in response to an earlier Supreme Court judgment that had made litigation funding agreements unenforceable. The Government have since acted by introducing the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill, which will deliver on our commitment to addressing the impacts of that judgment in all types of proceedings. Consequently, the provisions in this Bill have been removed, as they are no longer required.
We also introduced new measures to part 2 to address concerns about the potential ownership of UK newspapers and news magazines by foreign states, as we heard very recently from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The Government know that we cannot overstate the importance of those publications to our democracy and have therefore taken decisive action to preserve the freedom of the press. By establishing a new regime within the Enterprise Act 2002, the Bill will prevent foreign states from having ownership of, or control or influence over, a UK newspaper or news magazine.
The Government are extremely grateful for the support offered by Members of both Houses in the development of these new measures. In particular, we thank Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for their engagement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who first secured a debate on the issue in January.
Parts 3 and 4 make important updates and improvements to UK consumer law. Having consulted on a series of reforms at the end of last year, the Government amended the Bill in the other place to introduce new measures that address fake reviews and drip pricing. Many hon. Members called for the Government to address those harms through the Bill, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to do so, following our public consultation.
We have also made amendments to further strengthen the ability of public bodies to enforce consumer law. We did so by extending so-called take-down powers to a wider range of enforcers. There has been a healthy debate in both Houses about the measures in the Bill aimed at tackling subscription traps. We listened carefully to the concerns expressed in the other place about the potential impact of those measures on charities and their ability to claim gift aid. In response, the Government amended the Bill to enable the Treasury to update gift  aid rules. That mitigates any concerns about the Bill’s impact on charities. We are grateful to Lord Mendoza for highlighting the issue and for his engagement.
We also made a series of amendments to provide greater assurance and clarity for businesses about the new subscription measures, including addressing concerns about exiting contracts, cancellations, reminder notices and cooling-off periods. I hope that hon. Members agree that the amendments improve the Bill.

Sarah Olney: The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the Government are finally acting on the CMA’s recommendation, but will the Government support amendment 104, which is backed by the Liberal Democrats? It is about imposing requirements on secondary ticket sites. Often, people purchasing tickets from the sites do so at huge mark-ups on the face value of the ticket, and the ticket in question does not actually exist. The amendment would address those issues, reducing the risk of fraud by requiring proof of purchase. Does the Minister agree that we must do everything we can to ensure that this legislation is as robust as possible, to crack down on this type of fraud?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and for the amendment, which I will speak to in a moment. The Government have agreed to undertake a review of both primary and secondary markets, and I will deal with those issues later in my remarks. [Interruption.] I hear from the shadow Front-Bench spokespeople, but I think that is something that Labour proposed in earlier amendments, so obviously they have changed their position on that issue—not for the first time.
Finally, the Government made a number of minor amendments to the Bill in the other place. The majority are tidying-up measures, or otherwise small tweaks to the Bill, to ensure that it achieves its policy intent as effectively as possible.
I will now set out the Government’s position on the 11 non-Government amendments that were made to the Bill in the other place. The majority of the amendments seek to reverse or alter amendments made to the digital markets part of the Bill on Report in this House. There were three aims behind the Government’s package of amendments on Report in the Commons: first, to provide greater clarity to parties interacting with the regime; secondly, to strengthen the regime’s safeguards for the extensive new regulatory powers; and thirdly, to enhance the accountability of the regulator. The Government tabled the amendments following careful consideration of the views expressed by hon. Members across the House. We remain convinced that our amendments struck the right balance between the accountability of the CMA’s regulatory decisions and the flexibility to allow for targeted and proportionate action that tackles the unique competition challenges in digital markets.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is right that the amendments that were agreed on Report in this House struck the right balance, and I am afraid that on this occasion I wholly disagree with the way their lordships characterised the matter in their debate. We are not arguing for a wholesale replication of the telecoms regime; we are simply making sure that,  particularly with regard to penalties, which will be pretty onerous—and rightly so—there is proper discretion to allow a reviewing tribunal and reviewing court to consider the matter carefully, in a way that balances out the need for rigour and for temper when it comes to the power of the regulator.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention and his earlier engagement, when he made his position on that point clear. He is right to say that penalties can be significant—up to 10% of global turnover—so it is fair that we allow organisations to challenge penalties on the merits of the case, but maintain the ability to impose pro-competition interventions and conduct requirements on platforms. The amendments made in the other place risk undermining that careful balance. For example, amendments to revert the appeals standard for fines to judicial review principles, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) referred, would remove a valuable safeguard on the significant new powers that the Bill gives the CMA, as would the removal of the requirement on the CMA to act proportionately. Meanwhile, amendments to the countervailing benefits exemption risk making the exemption less clear for stakeholders. Consequently, the Government have tabled a motion to disagree with those amendments.

Damian Collins: The point about a “proportionate” response is relevant. In the original drafting of the Bill, the word used was “appropriate.” The Government changed that to “proportionate” on Report in this House, and the Lords have sought to reverse that change. What does the Minister think was disproportionate, if you like, about the word “appropriate”? What about it struck the  wrong balance? Ministers keep saying that they think things strike the right balance, but they never really explain why.

Kevin Hollinrake: We have engaged significantly, throughout the Bill’s passage and before it was introduced, with large tech and challenger tech. Our understanding is that all those cohorts are happy with where the Bill is today. Certainly, during that engagement, concerns were raised about the term “appropriate,” but the clear position that we expressed to those who raised that concern was, “Of course, there is a requirement on the CMA to act proportionately.” Putting that in the Bill does not undermine its basic principles. In fact, we understand from the situation in the European Court of Human Rights, and the property rights emanating from it, that all those things are baked in anyway, so we do not feel that the wording weakens the legislation at all, but it does strike the right balance between those two different courts.

Jeremy Wright: It is clearly important that we understand what “proportionate” means in this context. Is the Government’s position that proportionality implies that there is more for the CMA to think about than just how effectively the imposition of a conduct requirement would fulfil the CMA’s requirements? If so, what can the Government do to make that clear, so that courts and tribunals that  consider such cases do not fill in the gaps themselves? The words “appropriate” and “proportionate” could be interpreted quite widely if the Government are not clear about what they mean by them.

Kevin Hollinrake: My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his legal background that the term “proportionate” is well established in law. Of course, the courts play an important part here. We do not prescribe everything in our legislation; there is quite rightly the opportunity for people to challenge certain decisions by the CMA. Clearly, we are trying to reduce the ability of large tech to prevent investment from smaller tech. That is the balance that we are striking, but we do not want to discourage investment from big tech, so the requirement for the CMA to act proportionately is reasonable.

John Whittingdale: The Minister suggested that stakeholders were now satisfied with the Bill. I can tell him that there is concern about the change from “appropriate” to “proportionate.” The fear is that it will enable the courts to look more broadly, and will allow more scope for challenge than was intended when the term “appropriate” was used. Can he confirm that that is not the Government’s intention?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is not our intention. Our intention is to strike a balance. As I have said, the courts’ approach to proportionality was set out by the Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v. Her Majesty’s Treasury (No. 2), when the Court described the elements to be considered, including, most notably,
“whether a less intrusive measure could have been used”
and whether there is a fair balance between the intended objectives of the measure and the effects on the business that the measure applies to. That is a sensible balance to strike. Of course, some stakeholders want to go further in certain directions, while others do not want us to go as far, and we are trying to strike that balance. We welcome big tech’s investment in the UK, but we also welcome investment by challenger tech, and through this groundbreaking Bill—the only one of its kind in the world—we are striking that balance.
We have listened carefully to arguments relating to the Secretary of State’s approval of CMA guidance. Lords amendment 38, which was tabled by Lord Lansley, adds a timeline for the Secretary of State approving CMA guidance relating to the new regime. In response, we have tabled amendment (a) in lieu, which would achieve a similar effect by introducing a statutory 30-working-day timeline for the Secretary of State to approve the necessary guidance. We believe that that addresses concerns about the ability of the digital markets regime to start tackling competition problems without delay. We hope that hon. Members will support amendment (a).
On secondary ticketing, a non-Government amendment —to which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) referred—was made in the other place to the consumer part of the Bill. Amendment 104, which was tabled by Lord Moynihan, seeks to introduce additional regulatory requirements on ticket resale sites. Those requirements would cover proof of purchase, ticket limits  and the visibility of certain required information, such as the face value of a ticket. Both Lord Moynihan and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) have spoken passionately on that  topic during proceedings on the Bill. We are hugely grateful for their work highlighting the malpractice in the resale market.
To be clear, the Government are absolutely committed to protecting consumers from fraudulent activity in the secondary ticketing market. However, it is our view that protections for consumers are already provided by existing consumer law. The law imposes specific information requirements in relation to secondary ticketing that go above and beyond those in general consumer law. That includes the requirement for all resellers—be they traders or consumers—and secondary ticketing platforms to inform a buyer about the face value of a ticket and the restrictions on its use. The Government’s position is therefore that the secondary ticketing market is already suitably regulated. That said, we recognise the strength of feeling on this matter, which has been expressed by Members of the other place and in certain quarters of this House, so we commit today to undertaking a review of ticketing practices and how they impact on consumers. The review will look at both primary and secondary markets—in other words, sellers and resellers. We believe it important to consider both markets together.

Sharon Hodgson: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that we have debated this point before, and I will discuss it further in my contribution, but I make the point again that there may be legislation, but it is not working. There have been only two prosecutions in all the time since the Consumer Rights Act 2015 was passed. If further legislation was not needed, why did we bring in legislation to protect tickets for the Olympics?

Kevin Hollinrake: It is not right to say that there have been only two prosecutions—

Sharon Hodgson: rose—

Kevin Hollinrake: I will just finish this answer. There have been two sentences. Two people got a £6.1 million fine. There were four more successful prosecutions in Leeds Crown court only very recently, and sentence is due to be imposed on those individuals. The hon. Lady raises important points, and did great work on the all-party parliamentary group, and I will always listen to her. We are undertaking a review looking at primary and secondary markets, and she will have every chance to give her input to that review, just as anybody else will. I look forward to hearing her representations.

Barbara Keeley: The Government claim that they are doing enough, but that is just not the case. Here is an example for the Minister: on secondary ticketing sites, three tickets for the Taylor Swift show on 21 June are going for £72,000. They had a face value of £170 each. How is the market working?

Kevin Hollinrake: I agree that some of the examples are shocking. The key question is what measures we will put in place to address them. Ireland, for example, completely banned secondary sales, yet the prices seen  on the internet are equivalent to what the hon. Lady describes, so there is no perfect solution that has already been tried. However, we are very happy to look at the evidence, look at what might be done, and do something that is effective, rather than crowd-pleasing. That is what we are committed to doing.
The reality is that some organisers are simply much more successful than others at preventing large-scale unauthorised resales. The ticket market is clearly evolving rapidly. Our review will therefore consider evidence from businesses and platforms operating in ticketing and resale markets, as well as venues, artists, enforcers and consumers. The Government intend the review to take place over nine months, after which we will consider any appropriate further action. [Hon. Members: “You won’t be there.”] Members who are commenting from a sedentary position should beware of overconfidence.
I very much hope that hon. Members will support the Government’s position today. I especially hope that Members in both Houses will note our movement in two important areas: the Secretary of State’s approval of CMA guidance for the new digital markets regime, and secondary ticketing. These changes are considered and balanced, and I urge Members in the other place to consider their position on the other amendments that our motions today seek to reject. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments presented, and in response, we have made a series of significant changes where we recognise that improvements could be made. It is important that we now reach full consensus on the Bill’s final form, so that it reaches the statute book without further delay.

Chris Bryant: First, I pay tribute to my much-loved neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who led for Labour during the last round of proceedings on the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who led for us when the Bill was introduced.
Might I say a few words about the Minister? I do love the Minister. Members sitting on the Government Back Benches will not have been able to see the little wry smile playing on his face as he made his speech. Unfortunately, Hansard is not able to record that element of the way he presented his case. I will let the House into a secret: there are two versions of the Minister, or rather the Member. There is the Back-Bench Member, who I passionately agree with on nearly everything, and then there is the Government Minister, who has the Back-Bench Member sitting inside him somewhere, but has managed to lose him while taking on corporate and shared responsibility on the Government Front Benches. I bet that if he were in the Parliament that follows the next general election, and we debated these matters all over again, he would be articulating what I am about to say almost word for word, but today, he has articulated the Government position.

John Whittingdale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Of course I will, to the right hon. Gentleman—another gentleman for whom I have a great deal of respect, and with whom I occasionally disagree.

John Whittingdale: I just wonder whether the transformation that the hon. Gentleman describes, which occurs when somebody moves from the Back Benches to the Front Bench, applies equally to the Opposition and the Government.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about bobbing between the Back Benches and  the Front Bench than most Members of Parliament  in history, I think. It is obviously a problem; I do  believe in shared responsibility of Government—we want Governments to act as a single body, and not irresponsibly—so I understand, but none the less, it is perfectly appropriate to tease the Minister when he has such a wry smile on his lips.
This Bill is a classic instance of how the Tory chaos of the past few years has been bad for Britain. It is long overdue, as the Minister said: it started in the Commons more than a year ago, on 25 April 2023, and it is so delayed that the carry-over motion had to be carried over. I cannot remember that happening for many years, but the Government had to do it last week. The Bill used to strike the right balance between the needs of different parts of the market, but the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) was absolutely right to say that many stakeholders are certainly not happy with where the Government have landed. Intense lobbying of Downing Street from some parts of the market has led to the Government tabling amendments that would fatally undermine the Bill’s purpose and make it impossible for the CMA to do the job that we want it to do, namely, ensure fair competition in digital markets in the interests of consumers, investors and wider society.
I remind Members of what the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has said—it is good to see him in his place. He said that this is
“a market that is vulnerable—and, some would say, prone—to monopolistic abuse of market power.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 58.]
During the first Second Reading debate on 17 May last year, the Minister said that
“competition must work hand in hand with consumer protections.”—[Official Report, 17 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 880.]
That is spot on, so why ruin the Bill? This is the nub of the matter. The hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said on Report that
“a small number of firms exert immense control across strategically critical services online because the unique characteristics of digital markets, such as network effects and data consolidation, make them prone to tip in favour of a few firms.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 51.]
Again, he was absolutely right, but what the Government are doing today helps to tip the legislation back in favour of those few firms. It is a mistake. They pretend otherwise—the Minister has said that the amendments will not make any difference. In that case, why table them?
In an attempt to save the Government from themselves, the Lords have tried to return the Bill to its original shape with four sets of amendments, which I will now go through. The first set, Lords amendments 9 and 19, deals with proportionality. The original Government  version of the Bill said that the CMA’s conduct in regulating digital markets had to be “appropriate”. The Government then changed that to “proportionate”. Lords amendment 9 would change it back to “appropriate”. I believe that the Government version would, in effect, render any challenge to the CMA’s conduct a test of the merits, rather than a judicial review, and provide big tech firms with limitless legal budgets with even more scope to tie the CMA up in lengthy legal wrangling. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the Court of Chancery would have nothing on the CMA in the High Court. The Government seem to be deliberately clipping the wings of the CMA, and Labour agrees with their lordships that in this area, the Bill should be returned to its original form.

Jeremy Wright: How would a tribunal consider the appropriateness of a CMA intervention without considering the detail and merit of it?

Chris Bryant: The point is that either the change is necessary because a new and different measure is being adopted by the Government, in which case it is a lower threshold and therefore inappropriate, or the change makes no difference whatsoever, in which case it is unnecessary. The normal standards for deciding whether an amendment is appropriate would lead us to ask, “Is it necessary, or does it provide a good remedy?” I do not think that either is the case, which is why Labour does not support the Government’s wording.
The second set of amendments, Lords amendments 12 and 13, deal with countervailing benefits. Just to prove that Labour Members speaking from the Dispatch Box are very consistent with one another, my next sentence was effectively said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd in a previous debate: the countervailing benefits exemption allows the Competition and Markets Authority to close an investigation of a breach of a conduct requirement if a firm can demonstrate that its anti-competitive conduct produces benefits that outweigh the harm and are therefore indispensable. On Report in the Commons, the Government significantly reduced the threshold for that exemption, removing the word “indispensable” and merely requiring that
“those benefits could not be realised without the conduct”.
It sounds the same, but it is different—subtly but importantly different. The Lords amendments would remove that paragraph and alter the next line so that it reads
“the conduct is indispensable and proportionate to the realisation of those benefits”.
I will make two points in this area. First, as I think everybody accepts, the “indispensable” standard is a well-understood concept in UK competition law: it is used in the Competition Act 1998, which I do not believe to be as outmoded as some Members have suggested. Secondly, the courts would interpret Parliament’s deliberate move away from an existing, well-understood standard as intending to create a new, lower threshold, which again will inevitably allow the big tech firms greater scope to launch complex legal challenges.
If the Government really do not see any distinction between the two thresholds, the most obvious compromise would be to reinstate the word “indispensable” alongside the Bill’s new wording and to clarify, today at the Dispatch Box and in the Bill’s explanatory notes, that  the “indispensable” standard and the new form of words inserted by the Government have an identical meaning. Otherwise, there is a risk that the courts will seek to explore further whether Parliament has deliberately created a new threshold and standard.
I simply say to the Minister that I remember, when he was on the Back Benches and we had lengthy discussions about the powers of Companies House, that he was very keen on making sure that Companies House had the powers it needed to do proper investigations. He regularly made the point that lots of people have very deep legal pockets, and that does not necessarily mean that the consumer always wins out. I would argue that it is the same in this case.
Lords amendments 26 to 28 to clause 89 and Lords amendments 31 and 32 to clause 103 relate to appeals. The Bill originally had judicial review as the appeal standard for all CMA decisions under part 1, but in the Commons the Government moved to merits appeals for penalty decisions. I accept that this is only about penalty decisions, but I none the less believe that it is dangerous because, while the new regime is intended to be collaborative, it is ultimately the threat of fines that will incentivise big tech firms to comply with the CMA’s decisions. If there is no prospect of a fine, whether large or small, those large tech firms may well decide to be less collaborative.
There is the even greater danger that merits appeals on penalty decisions bleed back across the Bill into regulatory decisions, giving big tech firms greater scope to frustrate and challenge the CMA’s decisions. While it is correct that the courts are generally able to distinguish between judicial review and merits elements of appeals—that point has been made in previous debates by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)—it does not eliminate the concern about the two bleeding into each other, especially if the two streams take place together in the same case. If the Government are unable to reinstate judicial review appeals across part 1, as we would prefer, a clarificatory amendment should be inserted in the Bill to provide certainty that appeals on penalties cannot impact on other regulatory decisions to eliminate scope for speculative challenges.
It is worth bearing in mind that the chief executive of the CMA has made it clear that the authority wants the judicial review standard to apply. She welcomed effective judicial scrutiny of its decisions, but said:
“We think that the JR standard achieves that.”
She went on to say that her experience of merits appeals was that they result in
“very protracted litigation”,
making it
“a lot harder to reach constructive, collaborative outcomes”,
because
“all eyes are on that litigation process.”––[Official Report, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2023; c. 7, 8, Q4.]
Let me come on to the matter of ticket touting, and Lords amendment 104. I start by thanking Lord Moynihan—a Conservative peer, of course—for tabling this amendment and for his significant work across many years. When I have not agreed with every sentence from my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on this subject, I have sometimes felt the scratches on my back from her  very elegant fingernails, but she has also done enormous work, and I think she is much to be praised for it. There are many others in the House of whom that is true as well, including all those sitting next to her on the back row, who I am sure will catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I start from a very simple principle: the value of a ticket—whether for the rugby, the football or a gig at the O2—is created by the artists, the promoters and, above all, the fans. Yes, the secondary ticketing market can help all three, because sometimes people buy more tickets than they need or are unable to attend for whatever reason, but the abuse of the secondary market can lead to artists, promoters and fans all losing out, and abuse is rife.
I will take an example of a case that has already been through the courts. It is that of Lynda Chenery, Mark Woods, Maria Chenery-Woods and Paul Douglas, who bought and resold concert tickets worth £6.5 million. They bought them on primary sites, including Ticketmaster, before reselling them on secondary ticketing platforms, such as Viagogo, at inflated prices. They used endless tricks, including sending customers ripped envelopes to imply that the tickets had been lost in transit or using fraud juice, which involved the use of Tipp-Ex correcting fluid or more sophisticated digital methods, to amend tickets. They held their customers in open derision. Having scammed one person into paying £535 for a ticket for the Harry Potter west end show, they referred to him in an email as “another idiot”. These people are despicable parasites preying on fans, and we need to go far further to address this issue.
This practice prices many fans out of the market and adds no value whatsoever to the creative process, at a time when creators are in desperate need of making a living out of their craft. In 2016, one ticket for Adele at the O2 arena in London was listed on GetMeIn for £24,840, which is 290 times the face value of the ticket. Nobody in the Rhondda would be to afford such a ticket. Incidentally, Wimbledon faces exactly the same set of problems.
Viagogo is today selling two tickets for Pink at the Millennium stadium in Cardiff on 11 June for £498 each. I think the fans could perfectly legitimately start shouting:
“What about us?
What about all the plans that ended in disaster?”
It is not obvious what the original price was for those tickets. On Viagogo, people can get one ticket for Peter Kay at the O2 on 4 May for £302, or tickets for “The Book of Mormon”—it has been in the theatre for several years, and is a wonderful, hilarious show—on 4 May at £420 each. In a way, the one that upsets me the most is that tickets for the ballet “The Winter’s Tale” at the Royal Opera House on 3 May—a Friday night—are £1,006 each, but people can buy those tickets from the Royal Opera House for £140, because there is taxpayer involvement in supporting the Royal Opera House.
We could say the same of StubHub, on which two standing tickets for Doja Cat in Glasgow on 11 June with a face value of £162 are selling at £1,002. This is a pernicious industry. It is parasitical, it does nothing for the creative industries in this country and we must tackle it.

Sharon Hodgson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Bryant: I feel the fingernails.

Sharon Hodgson: I waited until my hon. Friend got to the end of all those disgraceful, abhorrent examples. Will he clarify for me a fallacy that the touts often put around about me and my hon. Friends—they will say the same about him? They say that we want to stop people being able to resell their tickets when they cannot go—they have bought them in good faith and genuinely cannot go. Will he clarify that that is not what any of us seeks to do? I of course want people to be able to resell their tickets, but at face value. Does he agree?

Chris Bryant: I completely agree, and that is Labour party policy. I am used to fallacies being written about me, and I have seen many written about my hon. Friend as well. I am sure we will all get over it. Incidentally, that is why, as I shall come on to say later, it is very important that we have a free press that is able to say what it wants, free from the intervention of state owners from other countries.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for somebody who has bought a couple of tickets for Saturday night and who suddenly finds that they are ill, that they have to go to a family engagement or that they have bought tickets for the wrong night to be able to sell them on at face value, or perhaps for a little bit more simply to cover the cost of administration and things like that. However, this is a market that is not working. It is an example of market failure, not an example of market success.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Chris Bryant: I feel more fingernails.

Barbara Keeley: My fingernails are nothing like as bad. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is actually worse than just the prices he quoted, of which he gave some really good and powerful examples, because of the selling of tickets that do not actually exist—fraudulent tickets? I have heard from a number of venues about the selling of tickets that should go to carers or young people. People are turning up at events such as those at the O2 and other venues with these tickets and being turned away, often when they have travelled to London and paid for hotels. So there is all the disappointment and the financial loss of that on top of the ticket prices.

Chris Bryant: I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are terrible instances of all sorts of different scams, and—this is the honest truth—remarkably few prosecutions. Whether the number is two, four or five, it should be in the hundreds. [Interruption.] Six—half a dozen—great!
The truth is that we all know instances from our constituencies of people who have faced precisely these problems. I have had constituents say to me, “I feel too embarrassed to own up to having bought these tickets.” I remember going past the Millennium stadium in Cardiff, or Arms Park in the old days, and we all despised the ticket touts, just as we did outside a Kate Bush concert or whatever. Sometimes, however, we were just so desperate that we bought the tickets, and they of course turned out to be fraudulent or non-existent, or they were allocated to specific kinds of people that did not include us. All those points are worth making, and I would add this one: all local authorities have trading  standards offices but many are now so depleted because of the state of local government finances that it is  very difficult for anybody to get proper recompense and a deal.
The Lords amendment—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I am not sure whether the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), was seeking to intervene. [Interruption.] Indeed, he is not allowed to, poor thing; he is silenced. Lords amendment 104 does the bare minimum. It would require facilities to accept postings only if they provide evidence of purchase from the primary market, it would limit the resale of more tickets than a single customer can buy on the primary market, and it would require clear information on the face value and trader’s business name and address on the first page of a secondary ticketing facility. That is simply not seen on any of these sites today.
If the Conservative Government refuse to act, Labour will. We will bring these measures in and go further, restricting the resale of tickets at more than a small set percentage over the price the original purchaser paid, including fees. Fans have been waiting for far too long. A Labour Government would end the pernicious and predatory ticket touting and put fans back at the heart of music, cultural and sporting events, where they belong. And if I might just say so, the idea of a review—

Kevin Hollinrake: It was your idea.

Chris Bryant: Well, we have moved on and it is about time the Government moved on—in fact I look forward to the day when the Minister moves on from Government Benches to here on the Opposition Benches. The idea of a review at the dog end of a Parliament and at the end of the regime is absolutely pathetic, and I am glad the Minister is laughing at himself for even presenting the suggestion today.
Let me end with an area of agreement. We were glad that the Government, under pressure, tabled Lords amendment 117 on mergers involving newspaper enterprises and foreign powers along the lines of measures that we and others, including a large number of Conservative MPs and peers, had called for. Of course the UK must remain an open economy; we welcome foreign investment in many sectors in the UK. But we agree that in this limited area, the state ownership of UK newspaper and media companies must be a matter for concern, which is why we support the Lords amendment. We will need to make sure in future years that it is adequate to the situation we find, not least bearing in mind many of the comments made earlier by Members on both sides of the House regarding the rather fluid world we are moving into, where newspapers are a rather outdated concept and social media and other forms of online media are far more significant. We will keep that under review, therefore, but we welcome the amendment the Government have tabled.
This long-delayed Bill could go forward with strong, unanimous support if the Government abandoned their tilt towards the few potentially monopolistic companies   and set aside their objections to the Lords amendments. Those objections are either completely otiose or they are dangerous. The Minister says they make no difference, I say they do, but on either grounds they should go, so we support their lordships in their amendments.

John Penrose: May I start by saying that this was and still is a good Bill? It does an enormous number of very important things and I am glad to see that it has broad acceptance and agreement on both sides of the House, although with some minor points of disagreement. It contains many of the measures that I personally called for in my Government-commissioned review of competition policy called “Power to the people” a little while ago, and it definitely updates and makes some much-needed changes to our competition and consumer laws. However, I share some of the concerns raised today about the Government’s opposition to four of the amendments that have come back from the Lords.
I do not have worries about the Lords amendments themselves because, as we have just heard from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), they mainly seek to restore the effect of clauses that were in the Bill when it originally came to this House. What worries me is that the wrong people are clapping. The changes that the Government have made, in many cases by seeking to resist Lords amendments, seem to many people to be on the side of the big tech firms rather than on the side of consumers, of sharper competition, of more consumer choice and of standing up for the man and woman in the street. I therefore earnestly hope that the Minister will be able to channel his historical zeal for these things in his closing remarks and reassure me, and I am sure others as well, that that is not the Government’s intention and that they remain committed to those things—that the fire still burns brightly in his eyes to make them happen.
I start by saying that the Government have already done some of that work with amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 38—they have replaced the Lansley amendment with a version of their own—dealing with the amount of time that the Secretary of State can take in dealing with guidance put forward by the CMA to make sure it is not unduly delayed. That is extremely welcome and a very good measure, and I enthusiastically support it. However, we have already heard about two other things in particular. One is the role of judicial review in dealing with penalties. I share the concern that in moving away from a judicial review standard for penalties to a full merits review we may get bleed-across—that clever lawyers working for big tech firms may effectively be able to broaden the scope through clever use of legal techniques to prolong their attempts to walk backwards slowly and prevent justice from being done. I therefore devoutly hope that my good friend the Minister will be able to clarify that he expects to be able to show to us—either from the Dispatch Box now, or in guidance or another kind of clarification in due course—that it will not be possible for bleed-across to happen and he will be able to take any steps that may be needed.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am very happy to make that commitment. We believe the Bill draws a clear distinction between infringement decisions and penalty decisions. After taking legal advice on this matter and looking at  previous competition case law considering similar issues, the Government consider that neither the Competition Appeal Tribunal nor the higher courts will have any trouble making that distinction for digital markets appeals. We have clarified that in the explanatory notes, which I hope provides reassurance that there is little risk of bleed-back from the merits appeal standard for penalty appeals to appeals on other types of decisions.

John Penrose: I thank the Minister for that intervention and, emboldened by my success so far in getting him to front up, I move on to my second point, which has similar concerns around it: the issue of countervailing benefits. We have heard from the Opposition spokesman about that, so I will not go through it all again, but it would be enormously helpful if, either now in a further intervention or in his closing remarks, the Minister could be clear about the new wording, which we have already heard about in his speech. I hope he will make it clear—again, either through clarifications now or in guidance—that it is not intended to be in any way a lower standard than what we had before when this Bill first came to the House, and that it is either the same or tougher. I am pausing just briefly to see whether he wants to intervene.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

John Penrose: He does, which is marvellous.

Kevin Hollinrake: The revised wording did not change the effects of the clause. Strategic market status firms will still have to prove that there is no other reasonable and practicable way to achieve the same benefits for consumers with less competitive effect.

John Penrose: We are making marvellous progress and ending up with changes being confirmed on the Floor of the House in a way I do not think I have seen before, so let us keep going.

Chris Bryant: rose—

John Penrose: I am sure this will be an equally constructive intervention, of course.

Chris Bryant: Would it not be even more helpful if the Minister were to say he would change the explanatory memorandums as well?

John Penrose: I am sure the Minister will grab that opportunity in his closing remarks, if he so wishes. At least he has taken the opportunity to stand up and give us public reassurances on the record about the standard that is intended. It is clear that it is no lower than it originally was, which is an important change.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

John Penrose: And again.

Kevin Hollinrake: The shadow Minister and I are having this debate vicariously, but I just note that the wording in the explanatory notes has not changed.

John Penrose: I am on a roll here.
The final of the four issues in question is proportionality. We have had the debate already, so I do not propose to repeat the concerns, but it would be helpful if the Minister, either now or in his closing remarks, clarified that the new and amended standard that is to be applied is no lower. I think he said something to that effect  earlier to the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but it would be helpful just to nail that one down and drive the nail home, if the Minister can. It is important for everybody to understand whether that new standard is any lower at all; it should be the same or higher.

Kevin Hollinrake: indicated assent.

John Penrose: The Minister is nodding, but I do not know whether he intends to intervene again.

Kevin Hollinrake: indicated dissent.

John Penrose: We will have to preserve our souls in patience for the Minister’s closing remarks. I will declare victory very shortly. It has been a helpful set of interventions, and I thank him for that.
My final point is not related to these Lords amendments, but to a commitment that the Minister made at the Dispatch Box on Report in response to an amendment on better regulation that I had tabled with the support of a great number of parliamentary colleagues. He made a commitment that a set of conclusions, matching a set of standards whose wording he and I had agreed in advance, would be in place before the Bill receives Royal Assent. Clearly we are getting close to that date—I hope very close—and I understand that a Government White Paper may be in the offing, but I am not sure whether that will arrive before Royal Assent. My point is intended not to delay Royal Assent, but to bring forward the White Paper or whatever document the Government may be thinking of.
Based on conversations I have had so far, I am also concerned that not all the commitments the Minister made from the Dispatch Box may be in that White Paper. I therefore urge him to make sure that between now and Royal Assent, he works assiduously with his fellow Ministers to make sure they have got the memo that should gone round after he made those commitments.

Richard Thomson: Scottish National party Members continue to support this Bill, and we support each of the Lords amendments. Notwithstanding the rather dizzying pinball rattle of interventions that went on between the Minister, the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I will be a bit of a traditionalist stick-in-the-mud and stick to the wording in the amendments and the Bill, no matter what references might be made subsequently to the ghosts of debates past in Hansard.
On Lords amendment 9 and “proportionate” versus “appropriate”, it might seem to people outside this Chamber that we are dancing on a pinhead, but such distinctions matter. It is important that decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority should be allowed to stand wherever they deserve to, but that means not allowing unnecessary wriggle room to creep in for entities with deep pockets to challenge decisions not on the basis of principle, but on the grounds of what those entities consider proportionate. We consider that replacing the word “proportionate” is appropriate in this case, and we support the Lords amendment on that basis.
Lords amendment 13 reinserts the word “indispensable”. As the shadow Minister said, that term is well understood in competition law, but it also happens to be proportionate  and appropriate in this case. It is entirely possible to envisage anti-competitive behaviour that can bring about consumer benefit either as a direct or indirect consequence, but we are clear that any benefits that arise should be such that they cannot be done without or forgone and that the test should be set accordingly.
With Lords amendments 26, 28, 31 and 32, we have believed throughout the Bill’s passage that the judicial review level is the appropriate appeals standard, rather than a full merits review. That is why we support those Lords amendments.
Finally, amendment 104 would introduce new requirements on secondary ticketing. We have heard in a number of interventions about the frankly astronomical, larcenous, almost confiscatory charges that are put on some tickets for certain events in the secondary market. It is important to note that it is not just about the price of the ticket; a considerable set of other economic choices go on around the purchasing of a ticket, including travel to and from the gig, the other tickets that people are buying, accommodation and food and drink. It is a huge financial and emotional investment for many families to go to some of those events, whether they are the highest profile events or something just of particular interest to that family or friendship group. We should be doing our utmost to provide the best protections for people who seek to achieve these experiences when spending their hard-earned money.
The Minister has announced a review of secondary ticketing to report in nine months’ time. I will not be as churlish as the shadow Minister; I can muster at least two cheers for that, although the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) was right that this Government are unlikely to be in place to carry through the recommendations if they report on a nine-month timescale. The House should be in doubt that the course of action before us today that could have the greatest impact on the secondary ticket market would be to pass the modest, reasonable recommendations before us in Lords amendment 104.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I hope that this is the last time we see this Bill coming through this Chamber. As I say, we support the Bill, but it is not beyond improvement, even at this late stage. In our view, it could certainly be improved, were the Government simply to do the right thing and accept the amendments before us today.

Damian Collins: I will speak briefly on the question that I raised earlier in the debate about the change of language from “appropriate” to “proportionate” and follow on from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). On one level, what the Minister is saying now—similar to what the Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Camrose, said in the debates there—is that proportionality is implicit in the law anyway and that the rights an organisation would have under article 1 of the European convention on human rights would apply anyway. Ministers are saying that bringing this language into the Bill is therefore a tidying-up exercise that re-emphasises rights that people already have. On another level, Ministers are also saying that this change creates a better balance, which means  that there will be some change in how things work. It is important at this point that the House is clear about what is intended with this change.
There is a concern that the change effectively opens up a full merits appeal basis, which we have been keen to avoid doing in all the debates on this Bill as it has gone through both Houses. The Government have rightly resisted calls from big tech companies to bring that in, because it is a recipe for multiple and lengthy litigations, just as with every single measure of tech regulation that exists as a whole. That is not the intention.
Let us say that a company may be guilty of overcharging in an app store, but the cost to the consumer is relatively low. Would an intervention from the CMA be proportionate? Overcharging in the mobile app market may exist, but ultimately companies are happy to pay it and it is a relatively small charge. Would a big intervention by the CMA be a proportionate response? There are so many competing priorities, and often the individual consumer cost of some of these measures would be low, but there is the business significance of a company self-preferencing a service to the exclusion of other companies from the market. The company might say, “There is no particular consumer detriment to this, because the price is relatively low”, but it drives strategic market status. We have already seen in the European Union with the Digital Markets Act that the companies are challenging the designation of strategic market status, and they are looking for grounds to challenge at every opportunity, and we must expect that they will do the same thing here as well. That is why we should be clear that we are clear about what we mean.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare invited the Minister to say that effectively, in terms of enforcement and how the courts should interpret it, the change should not make any difference from the original drafting. He invites the Minister to say that we should not be concerned that moving from “appropriate” to “proportionate” is moving from saying that the regulator should do what is within its rights to do—it is appropriate because it has the power to do it and it has made an intervention based on that power—to saying, “Even if it was appropriate for it to do it, it should not have done it, because it was disproportionate.” What would the grounds for that disproportionality be?
It is really important that the guidance to the legislation makes clear what we should expect on how the CMA can determine to find what it believes are proportionate responses, with that not being easy to dismiss on the grounds that the cost to consumers may be relatively low or the impact limited to a certain area of business.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a good case. As he knows, I agree with him about the need for the Government to be clear about what these terms really mean. One thing that we are not talking about today but which is linked to the question of definitions is what we mean by “consumer benefit”. Does he agree that there may be a difference between benefit to the current consumer and a benefit to the future consumer and that we should be clear in the Bill, should we not, that “consumer benefit” includes future consumers as well as current ones?

Damian Collins: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. We could have a digital service provided for free, self-preferenced by a big company,  offering a new service to its customers—how could there be a consumer detriment in that? But a consequence of that could be constriction of the market and the driving out of other businesses. The mobile mapping market is a really good example: Google Maps and Apple Maps totally dominate a market that used to have multiple competing companies in it. Now it does not, and there could be future consumer detriment in that.
That is why it is important that this is an ex-ante regime, which anticipates not just the detriment that may exist now, but future consequences. That is such an important principle for digital markets, which have tended to see the consolidation of market power in the hands of a relatively small number of players, who often do not compete against each other directly but dominate certain sections of the market, be it through the mobile ad market, search and retail.
There are only in effect two app stores, and given the lack of interoperability, they are virtually monopolies. We see those things already, and the development of large language model systems and the massive acquisition of data required for AI to run them is consolidating that market largely into the hands of the five or six companies that have enough data to be effective operators within it. That means that, in the future digital market world, any challenger tech developer will have to access its market and customers through the services provided by a relatively small number of companies. That is important.
I would be grateful if the Minister said in winding up whether he believes that the Bill offers a better balance. Has that balance changed, or has it not, and it is just a question of language and interpretation of meaning? What does it mean? I hope we all agree that, through making this change, we are not seeking to open up the legislation to wider judicial challenge, with more ruling through the courts, more lengthy delays and costs to try to bring forward the CMA’s interventions.

Barbara Keeley: I rise to speak against the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 104. As we have already heard, the amendment seeks to safeguard fans from fraudulent abuse, which is rife in the secondary ticketing market. It is an important amendment on an issue that, as we have heard—it is worth saying again—has had much work invested in it by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and her colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse. It also had great attention in the music industry, which is loud in its support for tackling ticket touting. Anyone who has tried to buy a ticket for a popular concert knows the frustration of losing out on tickets, only then to see the same tickets at 10 times the price on the secondary market.
Touting goes deeper than mere frustrations: it prices fans out of attending music, cultural and sports events; it damages the relationship between venue, artist and fan; and it undermines confidence in our live music industry. Yet, despite the calls of major UK music industry bodies, including UK Music and Live music Industry Venues & Entertainment, the Government have consistently failed to act.
Last year, the Government rejected the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority to strengthen legislation and protect UK consumers from illegal practices  in the secondary ticketing market. At the time, the CMA warned that unless there was reform, illegal reselling prices would become worse. Lords amendment 104 would implement the recommendations of the Competition and Markets Authority to provide safeguards for consumers. Those are basic protections, such as ensuring that a reseller cannot sell more tickets than they can legally purchase on the primary market, and ensuring that tickets cannot be sold without proof of purchase. It is deeply disappointing that the Government cannot commit even to those basic safeguards.
Under the Government’s watch, the situation has become much worse. In 2007, there were an estimated 150 full-time ticket touts in the UK. Now there are about 4,000 touts attacking ticket systems for UK events, using bots to harvest tickets in bulk. Instead of being used as a resale platform for fans who can no longer make it to an event, ticketing websites are increasingly being used by large-scale touts who harvest tickets on the primary platform—using bots to skip the queue—and sell them on at many times the original price, sometimes speculatively. Ordinary fans do not stand a chance against that; they are the ones who are losing out. The situation has become so bad that police forces in some areas are having to launch public awareness campaigns warning about ticket touts after hundreds of reports of ticket fraud.
Lloyds Banking Group was recently forced to issue a warning to its customers about the risk of buying resold tickets after 600 of its customers reported being scammed when they tried to buy resale tickets for Taylor Swift’s Eras tour. It has been estimated that resale for the UK leg of that tour alone has led to more than £1 million being lost to fraudsters so far. That is happening despite clear messaging from the promoters of the tour that resale tickets bought outside approved channels will be turned away at the door.
As I said earlier, the Government can claim that they are doing enough, and the Minister seems happy with that, but he should look again at those secondary ticketing sites, where he will see three tickets for Taylor Swift’s show on 21 June going for over £72,000. That obviously shows a completely malfunctioning, dysfunctional market.
The Minister cannot claim that the market is functioning for fans and artists—it is actually functioning for touts and the platforms they use. Lords amendment 104 is just one measure that would begin to counter the damage done by ticket touts. I am glad to say that Labour has now committed to going a step further.
Labour would significantly strengthen consumer rights legislation to restrict the resale of tickets at more than a small set percentage over the price the original purchaser paid for it, including fees. Labour would limit the number of tickets that individual resellers can list to the number that individuals can legitimately buy via the original platform. Labour would make platforms accountable for the accuracy of information about the tickets they list for sale, and would ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority has the powers it needs to take swift and decisive action against platforms and touts in order to protect consumers.
The Minister cannot keep sticking his head in the sand. As the Competition and Markets Authority warned in 2021, illegal reselling practices have become worse due to a lack of action. We are now getting to a situation where artists and venues are on the cusp of  losing the ability to sell tickets to genuine fans at an affordable price, and working families are being priced out of seeing their favourite artists or their favourite sports team.
Music, culture and sports events must not just be for the elite—the people who can afford thousands of pounds. How can the Government and the Minister justify their opposition to Lords amendments that would keep open access for fans to sport, to arts and to culture? I hope that he will listen to Opposition Members and not press the motion to disagree with this reasonable and modest amendment.

Sharon Hodgson: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is doing some great work in this area, formulating our policy for when we will hopefully be in government after the election. I am speaking in the debate in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse and to support Lords amendment 104, which relates to the secondary ticketing market.
Before I begin, I reiterate that the sole purpose of the amendment is to protect British consumers from organised crime and to reduce the harm caused by the unlawful and exploitative activities of online ticket touts. Aspects of the amendment have already been recommended by the Competition and Markets Authority, which recognised back in 2021 that the UK needs stronger legislation to tackle the resale of tickets. It is not just me who has been banging on about this since forever—the CMA is also calling for it, having looked at the market for  many years.
It has to be said that Lords amendment 104 will not come with any cost to the UK taxpayer either. If it fails to become law, the only beneficiaries will be scammers, fraudsters and the overseas websites that they operate from. So Members will be voting either in the interests of the British public or in the interests of ticket touts.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that all Opposition Members are doing is crowd-pleasing; I am sure I heard his words correctly. I think he will find that the crowd all have votes. This has been a fan-led campaign. Perhaps pleasing the crowd is not always a bad idea. We are here to represent the people, after all. For too long, this Government have allowed an online black market for ticket resale to thrive via websites such as Viagogo, StubHub, Gigsberg, Ticombo and Seatsnet. The public—the crowd, as the Minister called them—are sick to death of it.

Andrew Gwynne: I commend my hon. Friend for all her work over a very long period on this important issue. It is important to support the Lords amendment because so many of our constituents are deprived of even the chance of getting a ticket for a sports match, pop concert or whatever, as they cannot beat the bots. Is that not the inherent unfairness?

Sharon Hodgson: It absolutely is. It is not a level playing field at all. I was going to come to the bots, and the fact that nobody has yet been put behind bars for having used bots, even though they are illegal, and are the tool  that touts use to harvest tickets, so that they can scam the rest of the population and all our constituents. I am happy to stand here and crowd-please—I will do it until my dying breath—because that is what we are here to do. We should do the right thing for the public, and they are calling for us to regulate this market.

Chris Bryant: I do not want my hon. Friend’s dying breath. Did she notice that the lovely Minister did not even present a single argument against any of the elements in the Lords amendment? He did not make the argument on why the Government do not support it, even though it is a patently obvious and sensible measure.

Sharon Hodgson: That is a good observation. To hazard a guess, the Minister probably agrees with the Lords amendment. He is a decent chap, and I think he sees the right in it, but he is sitting on the Government Benches. He is always welcome to come and join us on these Benches—it is quite a popular thing to do lately. If he wants to come over here, we will sort this out. It would be great if he was part of that, which is probably deep down what he would like to do.
All the websites that we are talking about are based outside the UK. They employ, essentially, no British staff—maybe a handful at most, but it is hard to check. They all masquerade as marketplaces where fans can buy and resell with other fans, but we know that is not true. All are dominated by large-scale online touts committing criminal offences to harvest tickets in bulk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said in his excellent intervention. That has led to a highly lucrative resale market worth hundreds of millions of pounds.
This is not small fry anymore. Face-value tickets are syphoned away from genuine fans and sold back to them at highly inflated prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said in her excellent speech that the number of touts has gone from hundreds to many, many thousands. It is getting out of proportion. This is best summed up by Chris Allison, the former deputy assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan police. Following a four-year investigation of touts post the Olympics—those tickets were protected in law, as I mentioned earlier—he stated:
“Touts are part of organised criminal networks often involved in other crimes”.
In recent years, enforcement bodies such as the CMA, National Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority have tried, with varying degrees of success, to intervene in this broken market, either to prosecute the touts who are unlawfully defrauding music and sports lovers, or to force the ticket resale websites to comply with consumer protection legislation. And, oh my, the CMA has tried so hard to force those websites to comply, using the measures that it has to hand, which are not enough. It has even asked for further measures; as we heard in the last debate on this subject, the Government rejected that.
This has become an increasingly complex situation to sort out. That is why the Labour party is seeking to follow the examples of countries such as Ireland, France and Australia by capping the price at which tickets can be resold. Let me draw the House’s attention to my private Member’s Bill in 2011, which sought to do just that: cap resale at face value plus 10%, as the shadow  Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), said. That would allow someone reselling tickets to reclaim extra costs, such as booking fees.
Contrary to what has been written about me over many years, I do not want to stop any fans from reselling their tickets if they can no longer go to the event. I just want the industrial-scale, parasitic scalping to stop. However, until we get to that point—and while the Conservatives are still in government—it is important that current legislation is made as effective as possible. They could ensure that now. The small measures that we are talking about do not go as far as we plan to go, but they would be a start in preventing consumer harm and making it harder for bad actors to thrive.
I support Lords amendment 104, introduced by my friend and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse Lord Moynihan, with the assistance of Lord Clement-Jones, Baroness Jones and others. We have Lord Moynihan to thank for the amendments to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that got through small measures that we hoped would be the panacea for all the problems in the secondary market, but nine years later, that Act has not fixed this broken market. That is why we need this amendment.
In the amendment, proposed new section 92A(1) of the 2015 Act would compel touts to provide proof of purchase to the ticketing facility, or evidence of title to the tickets offered for resale. That is common sense, pragmatic and cost-free. The provision would target traders and businesses only, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, would eliminate the speculative selling that is endemic on platforms such as Viagogo, and the emotional devastation and physical risk that comes with it. I have seen numerous cases of what she spoke about: people being turned away, after having travelled from one end of the country to the other at great expense, and having booked overnight accommodation. They find that they cannot get into the theatre, the O2, the concert or whatever it may be, because they have invalid tickets.
Someone wrote to me recently who got in touch with Viagogo before the event because they feared that they had an invalid ticket. They were told to try their luck on the door, regardless of the fact that it was an invalid ticket. They knew that they would be turned away at the door with this Taylor Swift ticket, but were told, “Just try your luck. If you can’t get in, we’ll give you a refund.” They would have to fight for it first, and it would take six months if they were lucky. This person was also told, “Why not sell it on? List it again, and we won’t charge you a fee.” It is outrageous that she was supposed to pass it on. I have emails between her and Viagogo to back this up. She was being encouraged to sell on a ticket that she knew was invalid, causing more victims. Those are the sorts of practices that these websites use.
In August 2022, an ITV investigation based on data from FanFair Alliance found that two thirds of festival tickets on Viagogo were fraudulently listed by just three individuals. These resellers are relatively few in number but account for 90% to 95% of the tickets sold on platforms such as Viagogo. Let us think about that: just three major touts were selling 90% to 95% of festival tickets. Other platforms, such as Gigsberg, are 100% reliant on businesses and traders, many of whom my APPG and the CMA believe are acting illegally.
Subsection (2) of proposed new section 92A would crack down on the industrial harvesting of tickets by preventing resellers from selling more tickets to an event than they can legally purchase from the primary market. That is just common sense, surely. This was first recommended by the CMA in August 2021, almost three years ago. It made the proposal after a six-year enforcement investigation that concluded, as I said, that the CMA needed “stronger laws” to tackle illegal ticket resale. This change would make it easier for genuine fans to access tickets instead of professional touts looking to make a parasitical profit.
Despite the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, using bots and other malicious software is illegal, touts do so without fear of prosecution, as no one has yet been prosecuted for using bots for the industrial harvesting of tickets. Artists such as Ed Sheeran and Taylor Swift have repeatedly stated that they do not wish for their tickets to be touted. Artists get upset when their loyal fans blame them for not protecting them from touts, even though they do try. Both Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran have gone to great lengths to try to protect their fans from the touts.
Subsections (3) and (4) of proposed new section 92A force touts to clearly state the face value of any ticket listed for resale—again, surely that information should be provided—and to ensure
“the trader or business’s name and trading address are clearly visible, in full, on the first page the ticket is viewable on.”
The information
“must not be hidden behind an icon, a drop down menu or other device”,
which is what actually happens. The Consumer Rights Act states explicitly—these are Lord Moynihan’s reforms, which were added to the 2015 Act—that platforms must legally provide buyers with seat locations, face-value prices and restrictions, for example. They should be provided
“in a clear and comprehensible manner”
and
“before the buyer is bound by the contract for the sale of the ticket.”
Before they purchase, consumers have a right to know what they are buying, and who they are buying it from. That is in current law, but Viagogo has a track record of hiding face value behind what we call “hover text”, or small, tiny icons marked “FV”, so you have to know what you are looking for to find it. It obscures trader identities behind a tiny star icon, and only reveals a trader’s identity after the user enters their credit card details and has gone through the CAPTCHA process, so the user has often committed to buying before they know who they are buying from and what the face value is. That is in straight contravention of the 2015 Act.
On 99.9% of other websites, CAPTCHA is used to protect consumers. On Viagogo, it is used to protect the identity of its commercial suppliers—in other words, touts. Details of any ticket restrictions—for example, the information that resale is only allowed at face value—are provided in an unclear and incomprehensible manner, and are often buried in the middle of other small print, and then negated by claims about Viagogo’s “guarantee”—that is a very loose term if you are on Viagogo’s website.
Those practices are purposely misleading for most, but even more so for those who are visually impaired, tourists who do not speak fluent English, or older people without niche technical skills, who could be buying tickets for a grandchild’s birthday. I have had lots of grandparents in touch with me. As someone said—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South—they then feel stupid. I have had such a number of emails from people saying, “This is my fault. I was stupid. I should have known better. I should have checked.” We should not allow companies to exist that do this in such a big way. They say, “Buyer beware”; that is Viagogo’s motto, I think. It is probably hidden on its website. What is happening is not right, and it is up to us to protect consumers; that is what Parliament is for. We should not allow this to happen on such a scale.
Furthermore, experts involved with the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse have found that large numbers of sellers are based abroad, or have links to forms of organised crime all the way up to convicted drug dealers, money launderers and bank robbers. The secondary ticketing market is not full of “classic entrepreneurs” as a former Chancellor and former Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), would have us believe. They are serious criminals. If Members want to see when he said that, it was in 2011 when he was helping to talk out my private Member’s Bill.
However, convictions are extremely few and far between, despite thousands of professional touts operating. It is important for the Minister that I clarify the numbers. There have been only two major cases, involving six convictions, against touts. When I spoke of two cases, that is two court cases with six convictions. It is not six cases. I just want to make sure that that is clear on the record.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a really important point. She rightly points out the degree of criminality at the highest end of the organisations that are responsible for the touting industry, and the lack of prosecutions. It is actually quite a good business proposition for them, is it not? It is relatively risk-free. They are probably more likely to get sentenced for being an international drug dealer than for selling the tickets.

Sharon Hodgson: It is very interesting that my hon. Friend has come to the same conclusion I have. I have made that exact point in many interviews over the years: why would anybody go out and rob banks or do any sort of crime for which they might get caught, when they could just be a ticket tout? They’ll make a fortune and nobody will come after them, not even the taxman. There will be no hand of the law on their shoulder. There have been only two cases and six prosecutions in all the time I have been campaigning on this issue. So yes, it is time we sorted it out. It is just not acceptable.
The recent case that I think the Minister referred to earlier involved individuals being convicted for buying and reselling tickets worth £6.5 million—£6.5 million. They have been caught, but that is because they are right up at the top end. There will be people making   £1 million, half a million pounds, £2 million or £3 million who have not been caught. There are so many touts. The case involved using multiple, often fake, identities to buy large numbers of tickets with multiple credit cards. However, convictions are extremely few and far between, despite thousands of professional touts operating.
Finally, those who trade in the UK must be subject to UK laws—surely we all agree with that. Subsection (5) of proposed new section 92A states:
“A secondary ticketing facility must make it clear to traders and businesses based overseas that sell tickets to UK consumers and target UK consumers through paid or sponsored advertisements”—
in some cases using Google and trusted publications, or even sponsoring podcasts by trusted influencers—
“or paid infomercials that they are subject to UK legislation.”
The vast majority of suppliers to Viagogo and other secondary platforms are commercial businesses. A significant proportion are based outside the UK, as I said, but they target UK events to derive the highest possible profit. Likewise, none of the websites have offices in the UK. There are no UK jobs at stake, apart from a handful. It has been quite hard for me and my team to check and be sure of the numbers, as these companies are all registered in tax havens and overseas. However, the damage and exploitation occur in the UK at the expense of artists, athletes and fans, without any fear of the current toothless UK law.
Viagogo has already had its wings clipped, partially, by CMA orders over the years, but in my opinion it is nowhere near enough. It has repeatedly shown that it cannot be trusted to mark its own homework. For instance, elsewhere Viagogo was fined 7 million Australian dollars for misleading consumers, €20 million for breaking the law in Italy and €400,000 in France for breaking the law around rugby world cup tickets. Yet we heard the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, spouting the Viagogo lines of defence from the Dispatch Box just a couple of weeks ago—go figure! This is all on the record, because my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised it in a point of order a couple of weeks ago, just after the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries did it.
Unless legislative action is taken to stop this black market, it will continue to grow and cause further damage. This modest amendment effectively plugs loopholes in legislation, and ensures that music and sport fans of all ages have the information that they need before they make that purchase. I implore everyone here today to please support Lords amendment 104 and start putting fans first—or else move aside so that we can do so.

Alex Davies-Jones: It is an absolute privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—my good friend—who has been a tenacious campaigner on this issue for so many years, and I implore Ministers to listen to her and note her expertise. I ask them please to back Lords amendment 104. A review is not good enough in the dying days of a failing Government; we desperately need action now.
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I proudly saw this Bill through part of its Commons stages in my previous role as the shadow tech and digital economy Minister, and it is fantastic to see it so ably steered  through the House today with the support of my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant).
As we have heard, what was draft legislation for so long has been woefully slow to materialise. It had sat on the shelf since 2018, so it is nice to finally see it brought back to the House today and to see the Government taking action. I welcome it, as does the Labour party more widely, having led the way in calling on the Government to ensure that large tech companies are governed by proper regulations to allow for competition in our digital markets. Labour has long called for measures to protect consumers, enhance innovation and promote competition in digital markets in order to unlock growth and level the playing field for smaller businesses. In the midst of a Conservative cost of living crisis, this measure could not be more timely, and the need for it has been constantly confirmed in conversations I have had with constituents in Pontypridd.
Let us not forget that it is been over a year since the legislation was first proposed here. Owing to internal chaos and conflict, the Tories have long delayed the Bill, and it is disappointing that we are now being given a watered-down version of the original Bill and that its delay is causing us to fall behind our European partners. The UK has the potential to lead the way, but the Government have instead chosen to take a back seat and to be led. To say that the Bill is overdue is an understatement. Since it was promised, we have seen the digital world continue to change, grow and expand at an incredible and exponential rate. We have seen a significant growth in artificial intelligence technology hitting the mainstream, and tech is becoming more and more central to our homes, jobs and social lives. Our post-covid world has adapted to hybrid, tech-dependent working styles, and jobs in all sectors have accommodated that preference.
Whether it be for work, shopping or our social lives, we are all spending more time online. I see that—sadly—in my own habits, as well as those of my colleagues and constituents. I believe we can all agree that a thriving digital economy in which all sectors and all businesses become digital is vital for the UK’s economic growth, but the Government have nevertheless failed to keep up. Now that they have finally decided to deliver this albeit watered-down legislation, it is up to them to ensure that it survives and, if it does, to protect it from further watering-down changes. So far, I am not convinced that that will be the case. The Government have tabled an amendment in lieu of one of the Lords amendments, but they are ignoring the remainder. While most of the disagreement relates to different semantic interpretations of the wording, it is important that we get the wording right so that the Bill works in practice and not just on paper.
I am afraid that these frustrations are not new. Many of them are not dissimilar to those that my colleagues and I raised during the Committee stage of the Online Safety Act 2023. Let us be clear: while big companies have a significant impact on our economy, that power should never be extended to our legislative process. The process of forming and scrutinising legislation should be entirely independent from any private company interest. Parliamentarians and our Government should not be influenced in any circumstances, because we as public servants should be here for our people—our constituents—  rather than being here to promote and advance the interests of big companies and big tech. What is more important to the Government: appeasing big companies or acting for the good of the people they are supposed to represent? If it is not appeasing big companies, why will they not revert to ensuring that the CMA’s interventions are appropriate rather than proportionate?
We all know that this change will have a significant impact on the scope of the big tech firms to challenge CMA decisions under judicial review. Given that courts have to navigate these new and broader grounds for judicial review appeals against those decisions, big tech firms are provided with huge, limitless legal budgets and bottomless pockets to tie up the CMA in lengthy legal disputes. It is imperative that the Lords amendments remain in their original form to hold big tech firms accountable, to limit their scope to appeal and to reduce the ambiguity in relation to court interpretation about which we have heard today.
Moving beyond those concerns, this Bill is still absolutely necessary, which is why it has the support of the Labour party, as do the Lords amendments. We all know that the digital economy has opened new markets for businesses and has given consumers access to new information, but with rivals unable to compete with the world’s most powerful global companies, they do not sit on an equal footing. Google has a more than 90% share of the 7.3 billion search advertising market in the UK, and Facebook has over 50% of the £5.5 billion display advertising market. That is completely unfair, and constitutes both a challenge to businesses and a detriment to consumers.
This means that everyday consumers have little to no autonomy over their online choices, or in how much data they have to give out. As for businesses, this is limiting their innovation, as their ideas are likely to be quashed by an algorithm and they are therefore unable to compete by any reasonable and fair means. For example, Amazon’s use of its position as a marketplace, a publisher and a bookseller has been detrimental to the potential and work of independent booksellers who are pushed aside because they cannot compete with these huge companies and the advantages that the marketplace affords them. I am glad to see that the Lords amendments recognise the importance of user choice, autonomy and independence from the big companies that are pushing an agenda and escaping scrutiny.
Why, then, have the Government shied away from this? If, as they claim, the wording maintains the same high threshold, why will they not clarify the fact that the “indispensable” standard and the new standard are equal? What exactly are they afraid of? Big tech must be held accountable, and must not be able to complicate legal proceedings and escape scrutiny. Surely that point should not cause disagreement. Why have the Government again moved to a merit appeals approach to penalty decisions? This is completely unworkable. Proceedings must take a judicial review approach, which means that a decision will be judged on the basis of its lawfulness rather than its correctness or the views of a tribunal. This approach will fail to incentivise big tech firms to comply with CMA decisions.
While the Tories’ watering down of the Bill may initially appear trivial, in fact it will only encourage big tech to challenge the decisions of the CMA. If we want the Bill to be workable—to be worth the paper on which  it is written—we must ensure that it is clear, precise and unambiguous. Given that the judicial review and merits elements of appeals could bleed into one another—which is causing concern—ambiguity is already rife in this Bill.
The Government must reverse their watering down of this all-important legislation or, at the very least, clarify exactly what the changes to the wording represent. That is exactly why the Lords amendments are so necessary. I urge the Government to reconsider them with the seriousness that they deserve and, at the minimum, to make efforts to compromise, as they have done with one of them. The same must be done for the other three in question.
The Lords amendments would bring small businesses on to a level playing field, and protect the autonomy and pockets of our consumers. If the Bill fails to do that and is watered down any further, it will not be worth the paper it is written on. The Government can do the right thing. They should take the opportunity to do so, and I implore them to do so.

Lyn Brown: Today I want to speak in support of Lords amendment 104 and the Lords amendments relating to foreign state ownership of UK newspapers, and I will raise some questions about the Lords amendments relating to consumer protections against unfair subscription practices and the use of fake reviews. I will start by setting out my overall support for the Bill and establishing a bit of context for why it is so important to get the regulation of the digital economy right.
Over the past decade, our economy has obviously been transformed by digital change. In many ways this has brought benefits but, equally, it has brought new harms—new ways that unscrupulous individuals and companies can exploit us all. People in our communities are affected by the failures of existing digital regulation, and I would argue that it is often communities like mine that bear the brunt. In Newham we have significant digital exclusion, and massive damage has been caused to family finances by the cost of living crisis.
It is all the more damaging for someone to be ripped off when their income barely manages to pay the bills already. It is more than that, because in times of stress and when people are working long hours to make ends meet, they hardly have the time or the energy to read through often opaque terms and conditions before purchasing. They are less likely to have the capacity to go and search for all the deliberate barriers that can be set up in order to find out how to cancel a subscription that is costing them dear. I have to say that, even with assistance from younger members of my family, I have personally failed to cancel a number of subscriptions that I was absolutely assured had gone. We have to get this right—not for me, but for others—so that people have the capacity to search for all the deliberate barriers that can be set up in order find out how to cancel their subscriptions.
This Bill and many of the Lords amendments make welcome progress on some of these issues. I will start with ticket touting, which, as we know, is one of the most egregiously exploitative practices. I think we can  all agree that it is simply wrong to buy tickets in bulk and then charge a huge mark-up fee for resale. It creates massive barriers to accessing culture, particularly for people on lower incomes, and the revenues go not to our hard-pressed musicians and venues, but to grifters who add absolutely no value of their own.

Andrew Gwynne: It comes back to the point about bots. Even the most tech-savvy person cannot beat the bots, and once those bots get going, they sweep away all the tickets and genuine fans cannot get them. That is so unfair—almost as unfair as the extortionate prices that these companies charge for the tickets they have swept up using those bots.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have families struggling to buy tickets for their children who are desperate to go and see x band or y band, and then they find themselves ripped off and unable to have that treat, which was massively looked forward to.
I give huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for her years of dedicated campaigning in this area. Her work has helped to bring this issue to the forefront of debate, and to make it clear that legal change is necessary to protect our cultural industries and consumers from the touts. We on the Opposition Benches have a clear policy to stamp out ticket touting so that no one is able to charge a large mark-up on resold tickets.

Chris Bryant: Is it not important to emphasise that this issue needs legislation? Lots of venues have tried their level best to get it right. For instance, the O2 Arena only endorses the use of its reseller, AXS, which is only allowed to sell tickets at 10% above the original price—precisely what we are saying should be available to everybody else—but the venue cannot stop other companies effectively nicking all the tickets because of the use of bots. That is why we need legislation.

Lyn Brown: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have tried to nip this in the bud by bringing it to the public’s attention, putting pressure on individuals and encouraging action to be taken, but we need legislation to stamp it out.
I like the fact that in Labour’s proposed legislation there will be an upper limit on the number of tickets that an individual can resell, in order to make organised ticket touting an unprofitable practice. People who honestly buy tickets and then find that they cannot attend should absolutely be allowed to sell their tickets on—that is in the consumer’s interest and the best interests of our constituents—but culture and sports fans should no longer be gouged and exploited. Thankfully, there is a Lords amendment before us today that would ensure that very thing. It was put forward by none other than the Conservative Lord Moynihan. It would go some way to implementing these protections, but despite that the Government seem determined to oppose change and go no further in protecting consumers from ticket touts, even though they acknowledge that the problem persists.
Frankly, I know that my constituents will want to understand why the Government appear determined to stand in the way of greater protections even when they are being put forward by one of their very own noble  Lords. Why are the Government ignoring the voices of fan organisations and creatives who want a fair, properly regulated market in event tickets? I think the Minister might have a job of work to do in convincing my constituents that this is about sound regulation rather than the failed free market ideology of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). We in this House must not forget the importance of protecting Britons from unfair practices, and we must always remember to put them first.
We know that this is far from the only area where poor regulation of our cultural and media markets poses serious risks to consumers and communities alike, so I want to say a few words about the large number of Lords amendments on the state ownership of our newspapers. I thank my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues for demonstrating leadership and pressing for action on this issue, and I welcome the Government’s amendments in the other place following those calls. It is important that there is now something like cross-party consensus on this, because we live in a world where distrust is stronger and misinformation thrives.
I know that many of us share the fear that genuine, honest journalism is becoming a rare commodity, and the impacts of that are massive right across our society. Failure to promote a trustworthy media landscape fuels conspiracy theories and extremism, and it distracts attention from the genuine, massive challenges that face us as a country and as a world. We should all fear becoming a society that is riven by division, because all our communities lose out from that. I believe that only scammers, extremists and tyrants ultimately benefit.
I am not saying that foreign state ownership of UK newspapers would lead directly to those media outlets spewing division, hate and lies, but I am seriously worried about the further impact it would have on public trust in our media. We all need to recognise the greater potential for interference in our democracy from foreign states if they own media outlets directly.
We cannot just act to block foreign state takeovers of papers—our agenda needs to be wider than that. We need to support impartial and independent public interest journalism through the BBC, including the fabulous World Service, which is so important and currently in significant financial difficulty. We need, obviously, to continue acting to improve the regulation of online social media spaces where, as we know, trust is near extinct and where so much harm is done to the most vulnerable in our communities. Amendments against foreign ownership of newspapers are only a tiny part of the solution, but they are a step forward. I welcome the action taken on this issue in the other place, which has improved the Bill.
Finally, I will speak to some of the wider amendments made in the other place to better protect consumers from scams and exploitation. As we know, the abuse of subscription services by hiding cancellation options affects people in every part of our country. People are steadily losing money, month after month, to services that they do not want but do not know how to cancel. Citizens Advice estimates that £300 million a year is being spent on unwanted subscriptions. Obviously this is of even more concern where people are not completely digitally literate, so I hope the Minister might tell us more about what work is being done to monitor and  update the digital inclusion strategy. It is a bit of a shock that there has been no update for about 10 years. According to Age UK, nearly 6 million older people, including many of my constituents, cannot use the internet.
One constituent recently told me about how they missed a hospital appointment because they lost the message telling them about it. We all know that this is all too common, and that it creates unnecessary and unfair barriers to accessing so many of our public services and just taking part in everyday life.
Frankly, the examples I have seen show that anybody can be impacted, because it is often massively harder to cancel a subscription agreement than to enter one. That is just blatant and egregious, and it is difficult for any of us to navigate. Additional protections in law simply cannot come soon enough, and there is widespread recognition that greater clarity is needed in regulations. Regulators will obviously need to be more active in holding the providers of subscription services to account where they use exploitative tactics against consumers. The test is whether the Bill will deliver that.
I welcome the debate in the other place on how this will be implemented in law and, slightly unusually, I give credit to the Minister in the other place for rightly engaging with probing amendments and for seeking to maintain stronger protections for consumers. I hope the Minister here today will say more about where the Bill ultimately stands. Will the regulator have the clarity and confidence it needs to start enforcing against exploitative practices, or will we be back here in a few years after the regulations have been tested and found sadly wanting?
I argue that the lack of a clear prohibition on creating fake reviews was an omission from the original Bill. Shadow Ministers and Opposition colleagues have called for greater clarity on that since Second Reading, almost a year ago, so I welcome the measures that have now been included. In our everyday lives, when we look for goods and services online, many of us have little alternative but to rely on reviews. Fake reviews are clearly a massive threat to genuine competition, and they are effectively an open door for scammers and cowboys to rip people off further. Again, I hope the Minister might say a little more on the final position.
There was significant debate in the other place on probing amendments that questioned whether stronger provisions were needed, particularly on the responsibilities of platforms and internet service providers that host fake reviews. Is the Minister absolutely confident that those platforms are clear about the actions they must take to stop their services being abused by fake review scammers?
I am not entirely happy with everything in this Bill. I remain seriously disappointed by the Government’s inaction on ticket touting. I hope that the Minister will look again and find it in his heart to support amendment 104. I echo many of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda about some of the ways in which the general enforcement and appeals provision in the Bill have been weakened. I fear that there has been some heavy lobbying of the Government by big tech companies, which has had an impact. The people of West Ham will not be pleased to hear that, as it generates  understandable concern that the provision might prove too weak and riven with loopholes to do the job that Members on both sides of this House want to see, although the Bill has been improved in other areas by hon. Friends and colleagues here and in the other place. It contains welcome provisions that will help to protect my constituents from exploitation online. I hope we will see it in force as soon as possible.

Kevin Hollinrake: With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points raised in this fruitful, constructive debate. I reassure the shadow Minister that I have lost none of my mojo or ambition to ensure a fair and level playing field for businesses. That is a vital part of this legislation. At times I may smile when I am at the Dispatch Box and there are a couple of reasons for that; not only am I generally a happy guy but I am pleased to see this groundbreaking legislation being brought into effect. It is probably one of only two major pieces of legislation around the world that does what it does. We should welcome that and the fair and level playing field that will result from it.
I do not accept what the shadow Minister says about the Government having caved in and weakened some of the Bill’s provisions. It is fair to say that some of the platforms would like us to have changed the Bill radically from how it was when it was presented to Parliament. We think we have very much held the line on its provisions and how it will ensure that consumers and smaller businesses get a better deal. We do not accept that it will bring about “bleed back”, as he puts it, between the on-the-merits provisions of penalties and other regulatory decisions. We have been clear on that and our legal advice is of the same mind.
Secondary ticketing is a key part of the debate, having been raised by various Members. We absolutely see that there is good practice in some primary markets, where there is control as to resales. We should learn from best practice, such as ID requirements on the resale of tickets. That is within the gift of those in the primary markets, so we are keen to develop the review to ensure that we look at both the primary and secondary markets, as the Opposition called for in an amendment tabled earlier in the Bill’s progress.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Cheshire cat for giving way. Does he oppose the Lords amendment on ticket touts because of the proposed new subsection stating that there needs to be “proof of purchase” for secondary ticket marketing, or because details of the “face value” of the ticket have to be provided? It is difficult to determine why the Minister opposes the Lords amendment other than because it is an inconvenience to government.

Kevin Hollinrake: We believe that those measures, such as on the face value of the ticket, are already covered by the current legislation and enforcement. The Government have certainly gone a lot further than previous regimes have: we strengthened the terms and guidance in 2017; we banned ticketing bots—the hon. Gentleman mentioned that but did not seem to understand that it had been outlawed in 2018; and we improved enforcement action by the regulators, as we have seen six successful prosecutions under the new regime. I remind him that where other jurisdictions have supposedly gone further in banning resale, such as in Ireland, no  prosecutions have taken place. We are trying to ensure that we have a balance and that our provisions work well.

Sharon Hodgson: rose—

Kevin Hollinrake: I will address the hon. Lady’s points in a moment, as I am keen to respond to some of them.

Chris Bryant: If the Minister goes to the Viagogo website and tries to buy a ticket, he will see on the first page that it says the ticket is £420 or whatever. Can he see the original value of the ticket? No. Can he see whether it is a validly purchased ticket? No. That is the problem that the amendment would solve. It would be simple for the Government to agree to the amendment and then we can get the Bill through.

Kevin Hollinrake: We believe those provisions are already there. I have quite happily used Viagogo on many occasions, as other people have when reselling tickets. Of course we will keep looking at the primary and secondary markets, and at the interaction between the two, so that we can develop the right way to regulate the market, in a future Parliament.

Barbara Keeley: On that point, will the Minister give way?

Kevin Hollinrake: I will come to the hon. Lady’s points in a moment.
On the things we are doing to hold big tech to account, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) that the fire burns brightly in me. I do not think we have moved away in any material way from ensuring that this legislation is fit for purpose and does what it sets out to do. As I said in response to his earlier intervention, we do not believe there is any bleed-across between the merits-based approach to penalties and other regulatory interventions. The revised wording about the countervailing benefits exemption did not change the effects of the clause and did not change the guidance in the explanatory notes.
As my hon. Friend is aware, we are doing a lot of work on regulation. We have engaged on regular occasions to ensure that gets to where he wants. On costs and benefits, he will have noticed we brought forward the growth duty for our economic regulators quite recently, as well as the smart data road map. I know he waits with bated breath for the White Paper that will come forward shortly.
I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for his support for the legislation. We do not think the change from conduct is indispensable to the benefits; benefits could not be realised without the conduct materially changing the position in any way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said that we had moved to a different balance. I do not think I said that; I am happy to clarify my remarks about proportionality. We have provided more certainty and clarity around that position, which we always thought was part of the way the CMA would make its decisions. He made points about how the regulator would view, for example, the significant charges made across the Xbox platforms, which both charge 30% to the people who have e-commerce through those payment systems. As he said, businesses might not think that is too much, but we both know that it is  not businesses that pay that ultimately, but consumers. The requirement for the CMA to make interventions for the benefit of consumers is in its very DNA, so I think it would act in those situations.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) talked about the secondary ticketing position. I hear her points, and the points raised by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), very clearly.

Barbara Keeley: I counsel the Minister against what he is doing. As his colleague in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport team did recently at oral questions, he is repeating the arguments that the platforms use. It is sad to hear Ministers repeating the same lines that a global chief officer of Viagogo came out with when they were over here. In Ireland, fraud activity has not increased—because the legislation is working., and that is why there are no prosecutions in Ireland. We would be in that situation if we had that legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West probably wants to point out, it is alright to say that the use of bots is illegal, but nobody is being prosecuted for the illegal use of bots to wholesale-buy tickets; it is happening, so I counsel the Minister and his ministerial colleagues’ against their constant repetitions, which are not plausible to anybody outside.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Lady is right to say that there is a difference between legislation and enforcement. We urge the authorities that have responsibility to enforce those provisions to make use of them. In Ireland, where the resale of tickets has been banned, inflated prices are still a feature of the ticket markets. Tickets for Taylor Swift’s Dublin shows are selling well in excess of their face price on the internet in Ireland, but no prosecutions have been made.

Sharon Hodgson: rose—

Kevin Hollinrake: May I make it clear that I was not accusing the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South of crowd pleasing? As I said in my earlier remarks, and as I will say to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West before she intervenes, we should not simply take measures that are crowd pleasing in the hope they will work but they are ineffective. That is not to say that we do not think further measures are required.

Sharon Hodgson: On the point about Taylor Swift and whether any of her tickets have been sold on the secondary market in Ireland, I challenge the Minister to take another look at that rather than taking the word of his officials or whoever has told him. I have been told that no Taylor Swift tickets are on sale on Viagogo in Ireland. She has stated that her tickets will not be valid if they are resold on a secondary platform, so they will not be found on a secondary platform in Ireland.

Kevin Hollinrake: Yes, I have just googled sellers of tickets in Dublin, and people can buy tickets well in excess of face value on the platform. I could not find them on Viagogo, but other platforms are selling those tickets. We are trying to do something that is effective. I am very happy to continue to engage with the hon. Lady, as she makes a very compelling case. I shall continue to look at what she says and continue to  engage with her. I am very keen to ensure that we get to the right place, so that we protect consumers, but allow a fair, free market to work properly.

Andrew Gwynne: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to take him back to his comment that what was needed was not new legislation, but better enforcement. The enforcement authorities would presumably be trading standards. What is the reason there are not the prosecutions that we would all like to see? Is it because trading standards has been run into the ground and does not have the capacity to do the job that he is expecting it to do? Is it because of the complexity of the market? And which trading standards is responsible: the one where the platforms are based, the one where the person who bought the ticked is based, or the one where the concert is being held? That makes enforcing this measure really difficult.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Member for his points. I said not that legislation was not needed, but that there was no point in having legislation without enforcement. There have been six successful prosecutions by trading standards, but is he saying that he wants to fund trading standards to a greater degree? I understand some of the pressures on local authorities across the country; there are pressures on the public finances generally. If he has a solution to that and can provide lots more money to local authorities, he should have a word with his Front-Bench team, because that has not been Labour’s policy.

Gen Kitchen: Unlike with trading standards, many cash-strapped families and young people fall for online scams, because they are on the hunt for bargains on Facebook Marketplace and, to a lesser extent, on eBay and Vinted. They are often at the mercy of being ripped off with very little protection and little to no help from local trading standards because of that confusion over whether it is where the buyer is or where the seller is. In particular, that is because they are for more casual and lower-value transactions. Can the Minister confirm whether that will be in the review as well?

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a very good point. I am happy to look at the concerns that she raises. We will look at the concerns raised by all stakeholders, Members of this House and people further afield to ensure that, when we carry out this review, we get to the right place.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) seems to think EU legislation is stronger than ours. Let me point out that appeal standards consider the merits across the piece in the European Union; they do not in the UK, as they are confined to a very small element of it.
Finally, I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) supports the Bill and very pleased that she supports freedom of speech. Digital inclusion is very important. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) is working very hard on social inclusion and social tariffs of broadband through the cross-ministerial group. We are very keen to ensure that reminder notices for subscriptions are very clear for all our consumers.
To conclude, I urge all Members on both sides of the House to carefully consider the amendment that I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. I hope that all Members will feel able to support our position.

Nigel Evans: Taylor Swift seems to be everywhere, even in the House of Commons, doesn’t she?
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 159.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.

Clause 29 - Countervailing benefits exemption

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 12.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 161.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 12 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 13 and 19 disagreed to.

Clause 89 - Procedure and appeals etc

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 162.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 26 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 27 and 28 disagreed to.

Clause 103 - Applications for review etc

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 31.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 162.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 31 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 32 disagreed to.

Clause 114 - Guidance

Lords amendment 38 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 38.

After Clause 308 - Requirements on secondary ticketing features

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 104.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 163.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 104 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 1 to 8, 10, 11, 14 to 18, 20 to 25, 29, 30, 33 to 37, 39 to 103 and 105 to 148 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 35, 36, 42, 112, 117, 128 and 132 to 134.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendments 9, 12, 13, 19, 26 to 28, 31, 32 and 104;
That Kevin Hollinrake, Saqib Bhatti, Mike Wood, Steve Tuckwell, Sir Chris Bryant, Colleen Fletcher and Richard Thomson be members of the Committee;
That Kevin Hollinrake be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Paul Holmes.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Combined Authorities (Finance) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.—(Paul Holmes.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electricity

That the draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 21 March, be approved.—(Paul Holmes.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Goods Vehicles (International Road Transport Permits and Haulage Within the EU) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(Paul Holmes.)
Question agreed to.

Education

Ordered,
That Apsana Begum and Kim Johnson be discharged from the Education Committee and Jess Phillips and Gen Kitchen be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

European Scrutiny

Ordered,
That Adam Holloway be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Paul Bristow be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Justice

Ordered,
That Maria Eagle and Karl Turner be discharged from the Justice Committee and Bambos Charalambous and Yasmin Qureshi be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petition - Protection of the Amazon Rainforest

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Linlithgow and East Falkirk on the protection of the Amazon rainforest. The deforestation of the Amazon is a considerable environmental threat to us all and it is contributing to the forest’s inability to recover from drought, fire and landslides. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Brazilian Government to protect forest land and end large-scale deforestation, to prevent nearly half of the Amazon rainforest from collapsing and that these irreversible consequences for the Amazon and the planet are avoided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Amazon is the world’s largest rainforest and makes up half of the planet’s remaining tropical forests, home to about three million species of plants and animals and 1.6 million indigenous people; further notes that the forest is the world’s largest natural carbon sinks, absorbing and storing an amount of carbon equivalent to 15 to 20 years of global CO2 emissions from the atmosphere; and further declares continued deforestation of the Amazon is contributing to the forest’s inability to recover from droughts, fires and landslides.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Brazilian Government to protect forest land and end large-scale deforestation, to prevent nearly half of the Amazon rainforest from collapsing and that these irreversible consequences for the Amazon and the planet are avoided.
And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P002964]

Petition - Popular Uprising in Iran

Caroline Nokes: I present this petition on the popular uprising in Iran on behalf of residents of Southampton North who wish to protest against the violent repression of women and young people in Iran by the Iranian regime. More than 500 of my constituents have also signed an associated petition. These petitions note that the atrocities committed have been categorised as crimes against humanity by the UN special rapporteur. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to condemn the Iranian Government’s violent crackdown on protests led by women and youth, support democratic movements in Iran and put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop the repression.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that in response to protests and anti-regime uprisings led by women and youth throughout Iran, Iranian repressive forces have opened fire on protestors; notes that more than 750 protestors have been killed including 83 women and 75 children, as well as more than 30,000 protestors arrested; further notes that Amnesty International has reported that child detainees have been subjected to horrific torture, including beatings, flogging, electric shocks, rape and other sexual violence; further declares that the regime’s deliberate poisoning of schoolgirls across Iran is to take revenge on young girls for participating in demonstrations, with the number of executions increased to over 400 this year; further notes that the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran has categorised the atrocities during the uprising as Crimes Against Humanity; and further declares opposition to the killings and arrests of protestors, and support for the Iranian people’s uprising to achieve democracy and freedom.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to condemn the Iranian Government’s violent crackdown on protests led by women and youth, support democratic movements in Iran and put pressure on the Iranian regime to stop the repression.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002969]

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Jim Shannon: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). She has done tremendous work and she has been a motivation for us all, and I thank her for that. There are 100 people that I know of in Northern Ireland awaiting compensation, and with each month that passes, so too does their health fail. The act itself was regrettable, and the continued paralysis in implementing the compensation scheme is reprehensible and must be rectified as a priority for this House.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Strangford,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002960]

Robin Walker: I rise to present the petition of my constituents in Worcester. My petitioners include a constituent who lost her mother to this scandal; a dear friend of mine, who is a long-standing councillor and former chairman of my association, who lost his beloved wife and the mother of his children; and a constituent who was infected as a child with HIV and hepatitis, but went on to found the Tainted Blood campaign.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Worcester,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002967]

Wendy Chamberlain: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North East Fife. In common with those presented by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other right hon. and hon. Members, the petition relates to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work on the issue.
Two of the families directly impacted in North East Fife came into my office on Friday to sign the petition. One lost his father to hepatitis C as a result of the scandal, and the other’s husband was infected as a child at school.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of North East Fife,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002968]

Alex Davies-Jones: I am proud to also present a petition to show my support for all those who have been impacted and continue to suffer as a result of the infected blood scandal. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of those affected and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) in the fight for justice and compensation.
This issue is of particular importance to my constituents in Pontypridd, both for those who have got in touch with me to advocate for justice and for those who were sadly victims of the scandal. I have the utmost respect for Gerald Stone, Meinir Elin Gooch, Jodie Sugar, Owain Llŷr Harris and Tony Lane, to name a few. They have waited far too long and they demand justice.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002970]

Barbara Keeley: I join a number of right hon. and hon. Members in presenting a petition on the same terms, on behalf of constituents in Worsley and Eccles South, who are seeking justice for families affected by the NHS infected blood scandal. I too pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her wonderful work.
I also pay tribute to my constituents Claire Dixon, Ian Dixon and Olivia Dixon, who are seeking justice on behalf of Claire’s late mother, Nora Worthington, who was infected with HIV through a routine blood transfusion in 1982 and who died of an AIDS-related illness in 1993. They, like other families, have waited far too long for redress.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Worsley and Eccles South,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002971]

Heathrow Airport: Western Rail Link

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Paul Holmes.)

Tan Dhesi: I am extremely grateful to your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the House authorities for granting me today’s Adjournment debate on the western rail link to Heathrow.
I was elected to represent the good people of Slough in 2017. In 2018, realising the immense importance of this rail link, I established an all-party parliamentary group with like-minded colleagues from across the Chamber. The House will therefore be aware that I have long championed the western rail link to Heathrow, which would link Great Western Railway’s network, and constituents in the Thames Valley region and beyond, to the rest of the world via Heathrow airport. This is not just a project for the Thames Valley or for the south-east of England; it is a levelling-up project that would benefit local, regional and national economic growth.
I wish to place on the record my gratitude to the western rail link to Heathrow stakeholder steering group, Heathrow airport, the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, Great Western Railway, Slough Borough Council, Network Rail, BAE, Transport for London, the Department for Transport, Slough Estates Group, Atkins and others for all their hard work, expertise and invaluable advice to our all-party group over several years. Indeed, as eloquently explained by the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, the proposed four-mile rail link to London Heathrow airport would connect 20% of the UK population to within one interchange of our nation’s main hub airport. This strategic development would facilitate more direct access for travellers, allowing constituents to travel direct to Heathrow, eliminating the need to travel first to London Paddington and then back out again.

Gerald Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on the work that he has done on this for a number of years. Does he appreciate that the project would benefit not just Slough and that area of England, but the west and Wales in particular? Many constituents of mine have done that journey to Paddington and then back out. I wish him well with the project and hope that interest from the Government will be forthcoming.

Tan Dhesi: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has eloquently put on record how the Welsh Government themselves have strongly supported the link. I know that he is a strong champion for his constituents, and he has been doing that work on a plethora of issues, but in particular within our all-party group. Importantly, greater connectivity to Heathrow would bolster jobs, growth, trade, tourism, education and regeneration.

Wera Hobhouse: I have been a member of the all-party group since 2018. Does the hon. Member also recognise that the rail link would benefit everybody from Bath to beyond? It would also have many  environmental benefits, as people could choose the public transport option rather than travelling by car, which is what many of my constituents do.

Tan Dhesi: I thank the hon. Member not just for her support and her membership of the APPG, but for her alliteration—as she said, the project will be of huge significance for Bath and beyond. I also want to outline the cross-party composition of our all-party parliamentary group. Whether we are members of the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party, the Labour party or other parties, we realise the collective benefits to our constituents and the environmental benefits, which I will elaborate on shortly.

Robert Buckland: I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. He makes the essential point that this is not just a south-east issue; it affects Swindon, which I represent, and the western gateway. I rise in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the western gateway, which links Wales and the west. We fully support his efforts and the work of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce. He is to be commended for his work on this issue and has my full support.

Tan Dhesi: I thank the right hon. and learned Member, whose membership of our all-party parliamentary group has given it strength. He illustrates how the benefits will have significant impact in not only the immediate Thames valley region, which of course benefits me, but Wales, the south-west, the midlands and the wider south-east.

Kerry McCarthy: My hon. Friend has not yet mentioned the benefits that the train link would bring to Bristol, but I hope that it will make it easier for people to make the journey. Heathrow has an impact on the local environment, with surface transport playing a big role in contributing to air pollution and so on. If an easier train link can dissuade people from the west country from using their cars to drive to Heathrow, that would be very advantageous.

Tan Dhesi: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, because this has significant environmental benefits. She has done a great deal of work on the need to reduce our carbon footprint and get our constituents to access our main airport via public transport rather than by car.

Damien Egan: I add my support for my hon. Friend’s debate. Kingswood does not have a train station, but Bristol stations such as Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads would be well served by the western rail link. Constituents tell me that in some cases they are getting taxis up to Heathrow. Does he also acknowledge that the rail link could open up more areas for employment, because it would be a big employer, as well as helping more people to get to Heathrow?

Tan Dhesi: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a strong champion for his constituency since being elected. I had the distinct pleasure of conversing with many of his constituents while I was out in his area. The constituents of Kingswood do not have a train station, but the benefit of a direct rail link would be that it avoids individuals from as far away as Kingswood getting a taxi. That would reduce journey times and, as he points out, have a huge economic benefit for the wider region. I thank him for his support.

James Sunderland: rose—

Tan Dhesi: I give way to the co-chair of our all-party parliamentary group.

James Sunderland: As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group, I commend the hon. Member, my neighbour and friend, for all the work that he does to make this happen. The rail link is about jobs, economic growth, boosting travel opportunities across the UK and boosting Heathrow airport. Does he agree that, in the year 2024, it is almost perverse that passengers coming from the west of England and Wales cannot travel directly to our major international airport hub? Does he also agree that the rail link will bring huge benefits to London itself?

Tan Dhesi: The hon. Gentleman undersells himself. He was the vice-chair of our all-party parliamentary group, but he has recently been elevated to co-chair, taking on the role of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who was herself elevated to the Government Front Bench. He highlights that the link would benefit people not just in the south-east, the west, Wales and the south-west, but in London, because it would decongest roads, as well as London Paddington, as I will explain shortly.

Adam Afriyie: rose—

Tan Dhesi: I give way to my constituency neighbour.

Adam Afriyie: We are in danger of having a love-in here, but I will not disabuse the House of that notion, because across the House, on the Conservative and Opposition Benches, there is agreement on this. My constituents would join this love-in were the western rail link to go ahead, because it would remove congestion from the roads of Windsor, as far afield as Ascot, and even in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I think it is a really good move and one on which the House can unite, because it will help all our constituents, it will help the environment, and, most of all, it will unclog Windsor.

Tan Dhesi: I hope that the Minister is hearing the unanimity of support—or the love-in, as my constituency neighbour has pointed out. It is important to decongest our roads. People in Windsor and Slough get in their cars, or get a taxi, to go to Heathrow—that is predominantly what happens—so it is important that we provide this four-mile rail link. Indeed, my Slough constituency, which is home to more UK corporate headquarters than anywhere else outside London, is a huge business hub, and for those key industry leaders, this vital four-mile rail link remains the No. 1 infrastructure priority. In fact, it is the No. 1 infrastructure priority for the whole of the Thames valley region.
The scheme, which has been identified as a nationally significant infrastructure project by the National Infrastructure Commission, promises to decrease train travel times, offer a consistent service of trains in each direction, vastly improve connections from across the great western network, and bring destinations within the “golden hour” for foreign direct investors. The western rail link to Heathrow would provide four trains per hour to the great western main line; significantly  enhance accessibility for millions of people, from Swansea to Swindon, Cardiff to Exeter and Reading to Bristol; offer direct links to Heathrow; and shed half an hour off many journey times.
Delivery of the western rail link scheme holds the key to overcoming the barriers to growth that currently face the region, and would drive investment and unlock huge economic benefits. According to analysis from Heathrow airport, the western rail link is projected to add £800 million to the gross value added, create 42,000 new jobs and facilitate an estimated 20% shift from road to rail, as many hon. Members have highlighted. Additionally, it promises £1.5 billion in efficiency savings for businesses through reduced travel times and costs.
When Conservative Ministers announced that they would be build the four-mile western rail link to Heathrow and that it would open in 2020, the excitement in Wales was such that the then First Minister Rhodri Morgan described it as
“one of the most important announcements in the last 50 years.”
But it was yet another broken promise. The Government had invested £47 million into planning western rail before the pandemic, and, having committed to it more than a decade ago, it is about time that they built the western rail link to Heathrow for the benefit of the local, regional and national economies.
Let me outline the environmental benefits that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) touched on. The extensive benefits of this pivotal rail initiative extend beyond stimulating growth, inward investment and connectivity; it will also play a crucial part in our carbon reduction efforts. The western rail link to Heathrow is a carbon reduction project that will take cars off roads, reduce carbon emissions, and diminish passenger overcrowding at London Paddington.
The increased rail options for commuters in the Thames valley region would significantly reduce congestion on some of the UK’s busiest roads, including the M4, M3 and M25. That would reduce carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to those generated by approximately 30 million road miles per year. By helping to shift journeys from private cars to public transport, the western rail link initiative will underpin our transition to net zero and help to deliver the UK’s climate change and carbon reduction targets, as well as being a key support to levelling up in the region.
The proven business case for this project is predicated on a two-runway scenario. If a third runway were to be built, the scheme would become critical to providing surface access to the airport. The western rail link to Heathrow is a scheme of considerable importance to hon. Members in various regions of the UK and their constituents, as we have heard from the invaluable contributions to today’s debate.
Indeed, there have been various apologies from hon. Members who hoped to attend this debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), a former treasurer of our APPG, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), a former vice-chair. They have also expressed their support for the scheme, but as we enter the 12th year since the Government first committed to building this vital four-mile rail link, disappointingly, not a single spade has yet been dug into the ground.
Despite the Government’s failure to deliver on their promise, there remains robust cross-party support for the scheme in Parliament, as well as from business chambers across the UK. The all-party parliamentary group on the western rail link to Heathrow is a strong advocate for the economic merits of this critical infrastructure and its importance in enhancing the connectivity of residents of the Thames valley region to the UK’s main airport via rail. It is in the interest of all hon. Members to deliver tangible results for our constituents, and as MPs representing diverse constituencies, we are all acutely aware of the considerable advantages that our constituents stand to gain from this project.
I commend the leadership of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce; in partnership with key stakeholders, including our APPG, and without any public subsidy, it is co-developing solutions, and sustaining its efforts to ensure that the project remains at the forefront of all minds. That private sector commitment should speak volumes to all of us in this esteemed House. It is the private sector that has subsidised, and continues to subsidise, the Department for Transport’s work. That should be a wake-up call to the Government, showing them that this rail project simply needs to be funded and built.
There was a significant financial commitment from Heathrow airport prior to the pandemic, but the Government’s lethargic approach over the years has squandered that vital investment opportunity, bringing us all back to square one. The Government must go beyond the hollow words of support spoken over several years—words that Ministers have failed to take tangible action on. They must finally step up and make the financial commitments that will ensure the timely delivery of their promised western rail link to Heathrow. Just a few months ago, the Minister assured me in the Chamber that
“The Government remain committed to improving rail access to Heathrow”—[Official Report, 26 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 955.]
He claimed to “recognise the importance” of the western rail link. I convey my gratitude to him for recently taking invaluable time out of his day to meet members of our APPG, but the shocking fact remains that in the 12 years since the Government first pledged to fund this vital piece of infrastructure, not a single spade has hit the ground.

James Sunderland: Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party consensus across the House, which includes colleagues I have spoken to from Wales, western England and the midlands? It is great when the House comes together. They are all as one in wanting this project to happen. Does he share my hope that, in a minute, the Minister will outline at the Dispatch Box the preconditions for the Government taking the bold step of underwriting the project?

Tan Dhesi: That was very eloquently put, and that is what we hope for from the Minister, who is, I know, a good chap and a great champion of rail, but unfortunately for several years we have faced an impasse. I have been a Member of this esteemed House for the last seven years, and there have been lots of promises. Indeed, my first ever Prime Minister’s question to my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was on this very issue. There have been many promises, but  we are yet to see a timeline, and I do hope we will hear one from the Minister. Indeed, that is what the business community is expecting.
In conclusion, the importance of building the western rail link to Heathrow cannot be overstated. It would open up significant opportunities for growth, and enhance the travel experience and connectivity to Heathrow. The scheme will bring evidenced returns on investment to the Exchequer, help boost the UK’s productivity, and improve economic stability. After 14 years of consecutive Conservative Governments, and the plethora of broken promises and economic failures along the way, we need—my Slough constituents need—this vital stimulus more than ever.
Twelve years after the Government first committed to funding and building the western rail link, we are unfortunately no closer to the goal. When will the Government stop obfuscating, and provide the people of my Slough constituency, the wider Thames valley region and beyond with a clear timeline for when we can expect the project to be finally set in action? We have had various consultations over the years, we have run through various rigmaroles, and it seemed as if we were getting to the promised land, but we are still very far away from it.
The western rail link initiative is about more than just improving journey times. It signifies the strengthening of UK-wide and global links, and of our Union; a firm Government commitment to levelling up; significant steps towards reducing carbon emissions; and the unlocking of immense potential.

Huw Merriman: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this debate—or cross-party love-in, as he put it, albeit with a few digs into my heart—on a western rail link to Heathrow. He has been a strong supporter of this scheme for some time, particularly, as he referenced, in his capacity as chair of the western rail link to Heathrow all-party parliamentary group. I know that the scheme is of great importance to him, his constituents, the hon. Members who have intervened, and their constituents.
I turn first to Heathrow airport, which has a key role to play in boosting our global connectivity and the UK economy. It was ranked as the second busiest airport in the world for international passengers in 2023, handling an estimated total of 79 million passengers travelling to 214 destinations across 84 countries on 89 airlines. In 2024, this number is expected to increase to 82.4 million passengers. The Government remain supportive of airport expansion where it can be delivered within our environmental obligations. However, we have always been clear that Heathrow expansion remains a private sector project that must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers. The Government also recognise the economic benefit that airports can bring to their area. Increasingly, airports are becoming regional transport hubs that support multiple businesses, labour markets and population centres. Reliable and efficient surface access connections are an important part of achieving that.
The Government are committed to improving access to Heathrow airport in ways that work for passengers and address decarbonisation objectives. For example, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Elizabeth line services now run from Reading, through Maidenhead, on to Paddington and through central London to the City, Canary Wharf, Shenfield and Abbey Wood further in the east. Passengers from the west on the Elizabeth line can change at Hayes and Harlington for services to Heathrow airport, and in a few years’ time, they will be able to connect to the airport, once the Old Oak Common HS2 interchange station is built and becomes operational; that will become the largest new station we will have built. That will enable even faster journey times and more connections than ever. These improvements are on top of Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express services, which connect the airport with London’s public transport network, enabling journeys from across the country.
Although I have so far talked about connections for passengers, I appreciate that the issue is also important to local stakeholders, including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. It is an issue not only for passengers, but for the many thousands of people who work in and around Heathrow or provide services to the airport, many of whom will be constituents of Members who spoke this afternoon. The airport provides direct employment to 76,000 people. It is important that the transport network can get those people to work, as well as millions of air passengers away to their destinations.
Let me turn to the western rail link to Heathrow scheme and the question of Government support. We have always recognised the potential benefits of the proposal, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The western rail link scheme proposes a four-mile link between the Great Western main line and Heathrow airport. It is promoted by local authorities and business groups in the area. It is important to note that the Government’s position has always been that any Government funding would be subject to agreement on a significant third-party financial contribution. The position pre-pandemic was that only 50% of the cost would be funded by Government. Moreover, the scheme complemented the planned construction of a new third runway and the expansion of Heathrow, forming part of the proposals to deliver better surface access and addressing the environmental impacts of a busier airport—the airport would of course have been busier if the third runway had been built.
However, Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd is now not actively pursuing expansion, given its focus on recovery following the impact of the pandemic on the aviation sector. That has of course had an impact on the financial contribution from the private sector. As I understand it, promoters—primarily the Thames Valley chamber of commerce—are keen to revive the scheme as a majority privately funded proposal. Officials continue to work with stakeholders to support them in updating the business case for the scheme. This work is focused on updating the designs for the scheme, refreshing the cost estimates to take account of inflationary pressures over the last few years, and understanding whether there is demand, given changes in travel patterns following the pandemic and the current economic context. I expect to receive an update on that work later in the year.
The Government remain committed to investing in rail, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s Network North announcement, which detailed an unprecedented number of commitments. We are taking forward affordable yet transformative growth plans to increase connectivity and capacity on the railway, and have spent £2 billion a year upgrading the railway across England and Wales, including reopening previously closed sections of the network.
Given the hon. Gentleman’s points about rail investment, I remind him that since 2010, the Government—the taxpayer—have put forward over £100 billion of investment in rail. Of course, as rail Minister, I am very proud of that and support it. However, the significant changes to travel patterns after the pandemic and the challenging fiscal environment rightly require consideration of the rail infrastructure investment portfolio. Just running our railways over the last few years has cost every single household in this country £1,500, so it is absolutely right for taxpayers that we ensure that all schemes are affordable. The prioritisation of schemes and the allocation of funds in the portfolio is managed and updated on an ongoing basis.
I thank the hon. Member once more for securing this debate. Heathrow airport is an important international travel hub for the country and one of the busiest airports in the world, as I have said. That is why this Government recognise the airport’s requirement for good surface access connections.

Tan Dhesi: I thank the Minister for his response. He referred to “later in the year”. We do not seem to have a timeline, or urgency. Because of the lethargic approach taken by his predecessors prior to the pandemic, a significant contribution from the private sector was not realised. We then had the pandemic and went back to square one. Can the Minister outline a more precise timeline than just “later in the year”?

Huw Merriman: It is important to recognise what has occurred over the past few years. First, we have had the pandemic, which means that rail finances are 80% of what they were pre-pandemic. An awful lot of money is being put in. When we talk about delivering new railway, we have to take into account how to fund the existing railway. Other matters have changed. As a member of the Transport Committee, I was heavily involved in the scrutiny of Heathrow. The decision of the House was that the third runway could proceed, but after the pandemic, that decision moved. A lot of the benefits of the scheme are wide, as the hon. Gentleman has detailed, and I support them, but they also go towards the mitigation that a third runway would need. Obviously a third runway is now looking as though it will not go ahead, which makes the business case for the scheme that bit harder.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I hope that the case can be made, funding from the private sector is found, and we can give positive news to him and all the other Members who have spoken in this debate, and who champion this project. I end by giving him another commitment. If he, the members of the all-party parliamentary group and the Thames Valley chamber of commerce want to meet me, we can set out a timeline for the decision and what needs to be done. I can set out what is required from a private sector financing perspective, because I need to know that the money will be there if we are to do the work within Government. Let us all  work together, and let us sit down and have that meeting. I will be open and transparent with him and other Members, as I always am, and we can work out whether we can get this project delivered. It has great merit, and I like to see projects like this, where the private sector and the taxpayer work together to succeed for the betterment of the whole country.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.